Role Of Automated Urine Analyser In The Diagnosis Of Urinary Tract Infection
Role Of Automated Urine Analyser In The Diagnosis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v3i5.2099Keywords:
automated urinalysis, dipstick, algorithmAbstract
Aim: Although urine culture is used as the reference standard to determine presence or absence of urinary tract infection (UTI), culture is an expensive and time-consuming method. The objectives of the study were to compare automated dipstick urinalysis with microscopic urinalysis and form an algorithm to reduce time and labour of the pathologist and faster initiation of treatment to the patient. Method: 500 morning urine samples were analysed by using automated dipstick analyser( Cobas u 411) and those samples showing abnormal results were subjected to microscopy. Leucocyte esterase and nitrite positivity were taken into consideration as predictive indicators of UTI. Result: 34% of the samples showed abnormal results on automated urine analyser. Total 28% samples showed positive results for leucocytes, nitrite, protein and RBC’s were sent for urine culture. 5% samples grossly turbid were sent for culture. Conclusion: Automated urinalysis method can be used for the rapid diagnosis of UTI. The algorithm presented in this study will guide the pathologist to decide when culture should be advised after urinalysis. Urine culture is an expensive test for routine use and should not be applied unless the result of nitrite, leukocyte or RBC’s are positive on automated dipstick/ microscopic examination.
References
2. Patel HD, Livsey SA, Swann RA, Bukhari SS. Can urine dipsticktesting for urinary tract infection
at point of care reduce laboratoryworkload? J. Clin. Patholi.2005;58: 951-954.
3. Wilson ML, Gaudio L. Laboratory diagnosis of urinary tractinfections in adult patients. Med. Microbiol.2004;38: 1150-1158.
4. Zaman Z, Roggeman S, Verhaegen J. Unsatisfactoryperformance of flow cytometer UF-100 and urine strip in predictingoutcome of urine cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol.2001; 39: 4169-4171.
5. Okada H, Sakai Y, Miyazaki S, Arakawa S, Hamaguchi Y, Kamidono S. Detection of significant bacteriuria by automated urinalysisusing flowcytometry. J. Clin. Microbiol.2000; 38: 2870-2872.
6. Kellogg JA, Manzela JP, Shaffer SN, Schwartz BB. Clinical relevance of culture versus screens for the detection of microbialpathogensin urine specimens. Am. J. Med.1987; 87: 739-745.
7. Kauri TT, Fogazzi G, Grant V, Hallander H, Hofmann W, Guder WG. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest.2000;60: 1-96.
8. Hannemann-Pohl K, Kampf SC. Automation of urine sediment examination: a comparison of the Sysmex UF-100 automated flow cytometer with routine manualdiagnosis (microscopy, test strips, and bacterialculture); ClinChem Lab Med 1999; 37: 753-64.
9. Delanghe J.R., Kouri T.T., Huber A.R., et al. The role of automatedurine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. ClinChimActa2000;301:1-18.
10. Fenili D, Pirovano B. The automation of sediment urinalysisusing a new urine flow cytometer (UF-100TM).ClinChem Lab Med 1998; 36: 909-17.
11. Kouri T, Kähkönen U, Malminiemi K, VuentoR,Rowan M. Evaluation of Sysmex UF-100 urine flowcytometervs chamber counting of supravitallystainedspecimens and conventional bacterial cultures. AmJClinPathol 1999; 112: 25-35.
12. Carlson, D. E. and Statland, B. E.Clin. Lab. Med.1998;8:449–461
13. Winkel, P., Statland, B. E. and Jorgenson, J.Clin. Chem.1974;20: 436–439
14. College of American Pathologists (1984) Manual forLaboratory Workload Recording Method, p.140, College ofAmerican Pathologists, Skokie, IL.
15. Oliver Hauss. Bringing urinanalysis to 21st century from uroscopy to automated flow cytometry. Sysmex journal International vol. 18 no.2,2008;38-43.
16. Lenke RR, Van Dorsten JP. The efficiency of the nitrite and microscopic urinalysis in predicting urine culture results. Am. J.Obstet. Gynecol.1981;140: 427-429.
