Next Article in Journal
The Association of Vitamin D with Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Previous Article in Journal
Neuropsychological Consequences of Massive Trauma: Implications and Clinical Interventions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 59
Issue 12
10.3390/medicina59122129
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Urosepsis and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections—A Retrospective Study

by
Viorel-Dragos Radu
1,
Petronela Vicoveanu
2,*,
Alexandru Cărăuleanu
2,*,
Ana-Maria Adam
3,
Alina-Sinziana Melinte-Popescu
4,†,
Gigi Adam
5,
Pavel Onofrei
1,
Demetra Socolov
2,
Ingrid-Andrada Vasilache
2,†,
AnaMaria Harabor
3,
Marian Melinte-Popescu
6,
Ioana Sadiye Scripcariu
2,
Elena Mihalceanu
2,
Mariana Stuparu-Cretu
5 and
Valeriu Harabor
3
1
Urology Department, ‘Grigore T. Popa’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania
2
Department of Mother and Child Care, ‘Grigore T. Popa’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania
3
Clinical and Surgical Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, ‘Dunarea de Jos’ University, 800216 Galati, Romania
4
Department of Mother and Newborn Care, Faculty of Medicine and Biological Sciences, ‘Ștefan cel Mare’ University, 720229 Suceava, Romania
5
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, ‘Dunarea de Jos’ University, 800216 Galati, Romania
6
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Biological Sciences, ‘Ștefan cel Mare’ University, 720229 Suceava, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Medicina 2023, 59(12), 2129; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122129
Submission received: 8 November 2023 / Revised: 26 November 2023 / Accepted: 5 December 2023 / Published: 7 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Obstetrics and Gynecology)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are an important cause of perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the main pregnancy outcomes among pregnant patients with complicated and uncomplicated UTIs; Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 183 pregnant patients who were evaluated for uncomplicated UTIs and urosepsis in the Urology Department of ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital, and who were followed up at a tertiary maternity hospital—‘Cuza-voda’ from Romania between January 2014 and October 2023. The control group (183 patients) was randomly selected from the patient’s cohort who gave birth in the same time frame at the maternity hospital without urinary pathology. Clinical and paraclinical data were examined. Descriptive statistics and a conditional logistic regression model were used to analyze our data. Results: Our results indicated that patients with urosepsis had increased risk of premature rupture of membranes (aOR: 5.59, 95%CI: 2.02–15.40, p < 0.001) and preterm birth (aOR: 2.47, 95%CI: 1.15–5.33, p = 0.02). We could not demonstrate a statistically significant association between intrauterine growth restriction and pre-eclampsia with the studied urological pathologies. Conclusions: Careful UTI screening during pregnancy is needed for preventing maternal–fetal complications.

1. Introduction

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common finding during pregnancy that could lead to important perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality [1]. Due to heterogenous epidemiological reports, the current incidence of UTIs in pregnancy is estimated to fall in the 4–47% interval around the globe [2,3,4]. Several risk factors and physiologic changes in pregnancy play an important role in the development and spread of UTIs. The current literature has identified as predisposing factors for UTIs the following: ethnicity, advanced maternal age, multiparity, hydronephrosis in pregnancy, personal history of UTI, immunosuppressive conditions (e.g., diabetes mellitus), anemia, smoking, and low educational level or socioeconomic status [5,6].
The maternal complications associated with UTIs include chorioamnionitis, premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (such as pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia), and anemia [7,8,9].
Another important complication associated with complicated UTIs is represented by preterm birth. It can be also determined by multiple pregnancies, congenital abnormalities, chronic maternal conditions (diabetes, hypertension, autoimmune disorders, abdominal or uterine tumors, etc.), in vitro fertilization (IVF), extremes of ages or weight, maternal use of illicit drugs or alcohol, psychiatric comorbidities, or current pregnancy complications that require an iatrogenic preterm birth [10,11,12,13,14,15,16].
Neonatal complications that are associated with UTIs include sepsis and pneumonia (specifically, group B Streptococcus infection), intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, and a higher rate of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions [17,18,19].
In the presence of typical urinary symptoms, such as dysuria, frequency, and urgency, it is mandatory to perform a urine culture, regardless of the gestational age. Moreover, routine urinalysis during pregnancy can detect the presence of UTIs, even before they become symptomatic [20,21]. Escherichia coli (E. coli), Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae), group B Streptococcus (GBS), and Staphylococcus saprophyticus are among the most commonly identified pathogens in the pregnant patients’ urinary culture UTIs [22,23]. On the other hand, less common organisms, such as Enterococci, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Ureaplasma urealyticum, can also determine UTIs [24,25].
UTIs comprise a wide range of pathological entities that can be represented by asymptomatic bacteriuria, cystitis, pyelonephritis, and that can complicate with renal abscesses or urosepsis. Sepsis is a systemic host response to infection that causes acute organ failure and is primarily caused by the source of infection [26].
The maternal sepsis definitions underwent several revisions over time. In 1991, a set of criteria was developed, characterizing sepsis in terms of the inflammatory response and other host physiologic characteristics [27]. There were four categories, beginning with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and ending with septic shock.
Evidence-based recommendations on sepsis and septic shock were developed by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) in 2002 to enhance the diagnosis accuracy of sepsis and minimize mortality [28]. Early treatment with intravenous antibiotics and appropriate fluid resuscitation was emphasized in these recommendations. Within the treatment plans, physicians were expected to use a method known as “early, goal-directed therapy” (EGDT) to reach predetermined hemodynamic targets [29]. SSC recommendations have been updated many times since their first publication between 2004 and 2016 [30].
Recommendations from a task team led to changes in sepsis nomenclature in 2016. Because of the complexity and potential mortality of sepsis, new criteria have been developed to distinguish it from simple infection. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock, published in 2016, included the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) and the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), both of which use SIRS as their guiding diagnostic principle [31]. Due to changes made to the definition in 2016, SIRS was no longer a diagnostic category [30]. Septic shock was redescribed as “life-threatening organ failure induced by a dysregulated host response to infection”, and the phrase “severe sepsis” was eliminated from usage, since it was unnecessary.
The World Health Organization (WHO) developed an evidence-based definition of maternal sepsis soon after the 2016 updates on sepsis [32]. Maternal sepsis was defined as “a life-threatening illness with organ failure originating from infection during pregnancy, delivery, postabortion, or the postpartum period”, which is consistent with the sepsis criteria used in nonpregnant individuals in 2016.
Urosepsis is a potential life-threatening condition, associated with important mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that between 9% and 31% of all sepsis cases are represented by urosepsis [33]. A prospective study in Ireland on 150,043 pregnant patients reported an incidence of maternal sepsis of 1.81 per 1000 pregnant women [34]. The same study indicated that the majority of maternal sepsis cases were antenatally diagnosed (46 out of 272 cases), and urosepsis was identified in 21 cases (45.6%), being the main responsible for maternal sepsis. Escherichia coli caused 55% of all antenatally diagnosed sepsis, followed by GBS infection (4%).
Management of maternal urosepsis includes early antibiotic initiation, fluid resuscitation, and administration of vasopressors [35]. A prompt recognition of maternal urosepsis is extremely important in order to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth and perinatal mortality [36,37].
Given limited data regarding the pregnancy outcomes in patients with simple UTIs or complicated UTIs, specifically urosepsis, we have designed our research as a retrospective study which aimed to describe and compare the pregnancy outcomes in these groups of patients compared with controls.

2. Materials and Methods

Between January 2014 and October 2023, we performed retrospective observational research on pregnant women who had urosepsis and uncomplicated UTIs at the Urology Department of the ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital in Iasi, Romania. All patients were followed up at a tertiary maternity hospital—‘Cuza-Voda’, Iasi, Romania. The control group comprised of women who gave birth at the same time as the other patients but had no urological disorders
This study was approved by Institutional Ethical Review Boards at both the ‘Cuza-Voda’ Maternity Hospital (no. 6778/24.08.2022) and the ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital (no. 1808/04.03.2022). All individuals provided informed consent before to inclusion in the research. All procedures were performed in compliance with applicable regulations and standards.
We conducted a thorough data collection and analysis by evaluating the medical records of participants. Exclusion criteria were represented by pregnant patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria, who had multifetal gestations, ectopic pregnancies, first and second trimester abortions, intrauterine fetal death, fetuses with genetic or anatomic abnormalities, intrauterine infection, incomplete medical records, or who could not provide informed consent due to various motifs (age less than 18 years old, intellectual deficits, psychiatric comorbidities, etc.).
A total of 62 pregnant patients were diagnosed with urosepsis at ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital, and were included in the first study group. The second study group comprised 121 pregnant patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections, while the third group (controls) included 183 patients without urinary tract infection.
The following data were recorded: demographic data, the patient’s comorbidities, laboratory results (leucocyte number, CRP, procalcitonin, estimated glomerular filtration rate-eGFR, and urine culture result), associated medical treatment, type of complications, and pregnancy outcomes (type of birth, newborn’s gender, Apgar score, preterm birth, premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, thrombotic complications, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, fetal death, and the presence of postpartum UTIs and vaginal infections).
The estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated using the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) formula using age, sex, race, and serum creatinine concentration as parameters [38].
A 5 mL blood sample was retrieved from patients for PCT and CRP determination. Procalcitonin was measured in 1 mL of serum using the electrochemiluminescence immunoassay ECLIA (Elecsys BRAHMS PCT, Roche, Indianapolis, IN, USA), with a limit of detection of 0.02 ng/mL. A latex immunoturbidimetric assay (Hycount 5—CRP, Hycel Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., Schwechat, Austria) was used to determine CRP values from a 0.5 mL of serum, using a detection limit of 0.15 mg/L.
Diagnostic criteria for acute pyelonephritis were flank discomfort, nausea or vomiting, a high fever (>38 °C), and/or soreness at the costovertebral angle, regardless of the presence or absence of cystitis symptoms [39]. A positive urine culture was defined in the presence of more than 105 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL. Urinary pathogens and their sensibility to antibiotics were determined by urine culture and antibiogram. According to the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), urosepsis was identified in individuals who met at least two of the following criteria: (1) a respiratory rate of 22 breaths/min or more; (2) altered consciousness (Glasgow coma scale score of less than 13); (3) systolic blood pressure of 100 mmHg or less [30]. We also calculated the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score for those patients admitted in the intensive care unit [40].
The screening of infections in newborns was required in the case of maternal proven or suspected infections (urosepsis, UTIs, vaginal infections, pneumonia, etc.), preterm birth, premature rupture of membranes, prolonged rupture of membranes or prolonged labor, the presence of meconium in the amniotic fluid, or clinical suspicion of neonatal infection (fever, tachycardia, elevated inflammatory markers, etc.). This screening consisted in the analysis of biological samples from the external auditory canal, skin, blood (hemocultures), urine, or nasopharynx.
Statistical analysis was performed using STATA SE software (version 17, 2021, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). The relationship between unfavorable pregnancy outcomes and forms of urinary tract infections was evaluated using a conditional logistic regression (CLR) model, and the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each variable of interest. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

A total of 183 pregnant women with urological disorders who were admitted at ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital during our study period were included in our study. A group of 183 patients, who gave birth at ‘Cuza Voda’ Hospital, without urological illnesses and interventions during pregnancy served as our control group. The demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes of cases and controls are presented in Table 1.
Our data indicated that patients with urosepsis had significantly more immunosuppressive conditions (p < 0.001), ureterohydronephrosis (p < 0.001), pyelonephritis (p < 0.001), and nephrolithiasis (p = 0.04) compared to other groups. Moreover, the time interval between the onset of urinary symptoms and hospital admission for further investigations was higher for patients with urosepsis compared to patients with uncomplicated UTIs (5.00 ± 1.72 versus 2.78 ± 1.31, p < 0.001).
The gestational age at diagnosis was significantly higher for patients with uncomplicated UTIs compared patients with urosepsis (29.17 ± 5.44 versus 25.47 ± 6.29 weeks, p = 0.01). Regarding pregnancy outcomes, patients with urosepsis had significantly more premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.001) and preterm births (p < 0.001) compared to other groups. Moreover, patients with urosepsis gave birth to newborns who had significantly more neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions rates (p < 0.001). No maternal or fetal death was recorded in our study. The rates of thrombotic complications were similar among groups.
The rates of postpartum UTIs (p < 0.001) and vaginal infections (p < 0.001) were significantly higher for patients with a history of urosepsis. The most frequent pathogens responsible for postpartum UTIs in this group were Escherichia coli (10 cases, 50%), Klebsiella spp. (3 cases, 15%), Enterococcus spp. (3 cases, 15%), followed by Serratia spp. (2 cases, 10%) and Staphylococcus spp. (2 cases, 10%). These UTIs were treated with amoxicillin–clavulanic acid 1 g b.i.d or cefuroxime 1.5 g b.i.d in the postpartum period for 10–14 days.
On the other hand, the most frequent pathogens that determined postpartum vaginal infections were Candida albicans (three cases, 21.4%), Escherichia coli (two cases, 14.2%), Klebsiella spp. (one case, 7.1%), and Proteus mirabilis (one case, 7.1%). The fungal vaginal infections were treated with vaginal suppositories of nystatin 100,00 UI or fluconazole 150 mg q.d. for 10 days. For the remaining vaginal infections, we administered amoxicillin–clavulanic acid 1 g b.i.d or cefuroxime 1.5 g b.i.d in the postpartum period for 10–14 days.
The paraclinical characteristics of the patients with urological disorders during admission to the urology department are presented in Table 2. The mean values and standard deviations (SDs) of pretreatment leukocytosis and serum CRP were significantly higher for patients diagnosed with urosepsis compared to the second group (leucocytes: 18,916.67 ± 3356.74/mm3 versus 14,691 ± 2636.38/mm3, p < 0.001; CRP: 131.38 ± 70.72 mg/L versus 81.7 ± 70.34 mg/L, p = 0.004). The same findings were determined in case of post-treatment values of leukocytosis and serum CRP (leucocytes: 15,672.78 ± 3582.62/mm3 versus 12,177.78 ± 2076.41/mm3, p < 0.001; CRP: 88.30 ± 56.34 mg/L versus 63.49 ± 44.02 mg/L, p = 0.041).
The main pathogens that determined uncomplicated urinary tract infection were Escherichia coli (n = 87; 71.9%) and Streptococcus spp. (n = 17; 14%), followed by Klebsiella spp. (n = 10; 8.2%) and Staphylococcus spp. (n = 6; 4.9%). On the other hand, the main pathogens that determined urosepsis were Escherichia coli (n = 38; 61.2%), Klebsiella spp. (n = 12; 19.3%), Enterococcus spp. (n = 3; 4.8%), Serratia spp. (n = 2; 3.2%), and Staphylococcus spp. (n = 2; 3.2%).
Uncomplicated urinary tract infections were treated with amoxicillin–clavulanic acid 1 g b.i.d or cefuroxime 1.5 g b.i.d in the postpartum period for 10–14 days. Urosepsis cases were evaluated in the intensive care unit, and received Ceftriaxone 2 g b.i.d, piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g t.i.d, or meropenem 1 g t.i.d (for multiresistant bacteria), along with supportive treatment.
The bacterial spectrum of neonatal infections in the first group was represented by Escherichia coli (n = 5; 71.4%), Klebsiella spp. (n = 1; 14.3%), and Staphylococcus spp. (n = 1; 14.3%), while in the second group, Escherichia coli (n = 11; 73.3%), Streptococcus spp. (n = 2; 13.3%), and Klebsiella spp. (n = 2; 13.3%) determined neonatal infections.
The results of the CLR model with adjusted odds ratios are displayed in Table 3. The presence of a urosepsis diagnosis during pregnancy was associated with increased odds of the premature rupture of membranes (aOR: 5.59, 95%CI: 2.02–15.40, p < 0.001) and preterm birth (aOR: 2.47, 95%CI: 1.15–5.33, p = 0.02). On the other hand, none of the urological disorders were associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as intrauterine growth restriction (p = 0.66), pre-eclampsia (p = 0.22), NICU admission (p = 0.06), or ARDS (p = 0.42).

4. Discussion

Urinary sepsis during pregnancy is a poorly explored topic in the literature, and in this retrospective study, we presented our clinical experience over almost 8 years regarding the pregnancy outcomes in patients who developed uncomplicated UTIs or urosepsis compared with controls. Our results indicated that patients with urosepsis had an increased likelihood of premature rupture of membranes (aOR: 5.59, 95%CI: 2.02–15.40, p < 0.001) and preterm birth (aOR: 2.47, 95%CI: 1.15–5.33, p = 0.02). The role of urinary infections in the determinism of preterm birth is well established, and immunosuppressive conditions favor the development of severe forms of infection, as we determined in this study [41,42,43,44,45].
Intrauterine growth restriction and pre-eclampsia are two pathologic entities that derive from the ischemic placental disorder. Both conditions have been associated in the literature with the occurrence of urinary tract infections [46]. A population-based study by Mazor-Dray et al., on a cohort of 199,099 deliveries, demonstrated that patients with UTIs had significantly higher rates of intrauterine growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, caesarean deliveries, and preterm deliveries [18]. Although our results confirmed the association between urosepsis and preterm deliveries, we could not demonstrate a statistically significant association between the other pregnancy outcomes, such as IUGR and pre-eclampsia, mainly due to a small cohort of patients. It is important to note that the current data in the literature are scarce regarding the description of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the urosepsis context.
Another finding of this study showed that patients with urosepsis gave birth to newborns who had significantly more NICU admission rates. This observation might be validated by the fact that preterm newborns often experience increased morbidity and need specialized care in NICUs [47,48]. Moreover, it was demonstrated that maternal UTI during pregnancy increases the risk of congenital malformations [49,50], but this aspect was not observed in our cohort of patients. Also, no neonatal deaths were recorded in the study groups.
Adverse pregnancy outcomes were more prevalent in both urosepsis and uncomplicated urinary tract infections cases compared to controls, but our results indicated that a previous diagnosis of urosepsis in pregnancy significantly increased the odds of the premature rupture of membranes and preterm birth.
Thus, careful monitoring of pregnant patients, especially in the presence of risk factors, such as nephrolithiasis, ureterohydronephrosis, and double-J ureteric stenting, is extremely important for the early detection of UTIs and for preventing their progression to infectious complications
Both patients who developed uncomplicated UTIs and urosepsis presented risk factors for such conditions, but they were more prevalent in the urosepsis group. For example, in our study, we found that patients with urosepsis had significantly more diagnoses of ureterohydronephrosis, pyelonephritis, nephrolithiasis, and double-J ureteric stenting. Moreover, the time interval between the onset of urinary symptoms and hospital admission for further investigations was higher for patients with urosepsis compared to patients with uncomplicated UTIs. All these are known risk factors for developing UTIs in pregnancy [6,51], and we hypothesize that the longer timeframe until admission to the urology department in the case of patients with urosepsis constitutes an important aggravating factor.
Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterococcus spp. were the main determinants of UTIs in our cohort of patients. This bacterial spectrum corresponds to the pathogenic microorganisms associated with UTI in pregnancy [43,52,53]. Postpartum UTIs were more frequently encountered in the urosepsis group, and the bacterial spectrum responsible for postpartum UTI was similar to that described by the urine culture taken during pregnancy, with Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterococcus spp. being the most prevalent.
Procalcitonin is a serum prohormone that increases in the presence of endotoxins and proinflammatory mediators in the context of tissue damage, systemic inflammation, and especially severe bacterial infection [54]. It is a relatively new biomarker that outperforms the traditional biomarkers, such as C-reactive protein and leukocyte count, when used for the diagnosis of bacterial infection and for the monitoring of antibiotic therapy [55,56].
Although CRP is not a very specific test for sepsis, it does have a very high negative predictive value [57]. Moreover, it has a longer latent period when compared with PCT (6 versus 2 h) [58,59]. The PCT serum levels rapidly increase during the first hours of severe bacterial infections and can support the decision for early antibiotic administration in severe bacterial infections [60].
Due to its elevated levels during pregnancy, leucocyte count has limited potential as a biomarker of infection and inflammation [61]. On the other hand, it demonstrated a significant rise in PCT serum levels in Gram-negative infections compared to Gram-positive [62]. In cases of severe obstetric infections, E. coli is the most often detected pathogen in blood cultures [34]. A PCT value between 2 and 10 ng/mL indicates that a systemic infection is possible, and in our study, the mean PCT value and standard deviation for patients in the urosepsis group were 5.22 ± 1.35 ng/mL. Also, the CRP and leucocyte values were significantly higher for the urosepsis group compared to the second group.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) can be a result of a septic state. A prospective observational study by Gopalakrishnan et al., on 130 patients, reported an incidence of acute kidney injury in pregnancy of 7.8%, and it was determined in the majority of cases (39%) by maternal sepsis [63]. However, since the RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage) criteria, the KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Outcomes) recommendations, and the AKI Network (AKIN) criteria have not been validated in the pregnant population, the prevalence of pregnancy-related AKI is difficult to ascertain [64,65].
No maternal and fetal deaths were recorded in our cohort of patients, and this finding is in line with previous reports [34]. However, obstetrical sepsis remains an important cause of mortality, with a rate between 8% and 14% for patients with septic shock [35,40,66]. Shields et al. outlined the idea that clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for maternal sepsis, especially in the context of nonspecific symptoms [67]. This perspective would allow them to promptly apply sepsis scoring systems and to initialize early antibiotic treatment.
The high cesarean delivery rates could be partially explained by the iatrogenic delivery of the fetus in the case of altered fetal status (acute fetal distress, chorioamnionitis, premature rupture of membranes, etc.) and/or maternal decompensation, despite prompt antibiotherapy and double-J ureteric stenting. Furthermore, previous cesarean delivery in the personal history of our patients, along with the patients’ desire to avoid vaginal delivery, were also factors that influenced the high cesarean delivery rates.
The main limitation of our study is the small cohort of patients. On the other hand, this study retrospectively identified urosepsis cases that were treated in a regional center from Romania in an 8-year time-frame, and could serve as a basis for other observational studies on larger cohorts of patients.

5. Conclusions

Early identification of risk factors that promote urinary tract complications, especially during pregnancy, could determine a shift in the monitoring and therapeutic approaches towards a more active stance.
Moreover, clinicians could include these risk factors in the counseling sessions of pregnant patients and inform them about the possible adverse outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.-D.R., P.V., A.C., A.-M.A., A.-S.M.-P., V.H., G.A., and V.H.; methodology, P.O., D.S., I.-A.V., A.H., and M.M.-P.; software, I.S.S., E.M., M.S.-C., and P.O.; validation, V.-D.R., P.V., A.C., A.-M.A., A.-S.M.-P., V.H., G.A., and V.H.; formal analysis, D.S., I.-A.V., A.H., and M.M.-P.; investigation, V.-D.R., P.V., A.C., A.-M.A., A.-S.M.-P., V.H., G.A., and M.S.-C.; resources, D.S., I.-A.V., A.H., and M.M.-P.; data curation, I.S.S., E.M., M.S.-C., and P.O.; writing—original draft preparation, V.-D.R., P.V., A.C., A.-M.A., A.-S.M.-P., V.H., G.A., and V.H.; writing—review and editing, V.-D.R., P.O., D.S., I.-A.V., A.H., and M.M.-P.; visualization, I.-A.V.; supervision, V.-D.R.; project administration, V.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committees of ‘Cuza-Voda’ Maternity Hospital (no. 2871/5 March 2022) and ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital (no. 1808/4 March 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors. The data are not publicly available due to local policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gilbert, N.M.; O’brien, V.P.; Hultgren, S.; Macones, G.; Lewis, W.G.; Lewis, A.L. Urinary tract infection as a preventable cause of pregnancy complications: Opportunities, challenges, and a global call to action. Glob. Adv. Health Med. 2013, 2, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Elzayat, M.A.-A.; Barnett-Vanes, A.; Dabour, M.F.E.; Cheng, F. Prevalence of undiagnosed asymptomatic bacteriuria and associated risk factors during pregnancy: A cross-sectional study at two tertiary centres in Cairo, Egypt. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e013198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lee, A.C.; Mullany, L.C.; Koffi, A.K.; Rafiqullah, I.; Khanam, R.; Folger, L.V.; Rahman, M.; Mitra, D.K.; Labrique, A.; Christian, P. Urinary tract infections in pregnancy in a rural population of Bangladesh: Population-based prevalence, risk factors, etiology, and antibiotic resistance. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020, 20, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tadesse, E.; Teshome, M.; Merid, Y.; Kibret, B.; Shimelis, T. Asymptomatic urinary tract infection among pregnant women attending the antenatal clinic of Hawassa Referral Hospital, Southern Ethiopia. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Johnson, C.Y.; Rocheleau, C.M.; Howley, M.M.; Chiu, S.K.; Arnold, K.E.; Ailes, E.C. Characteristics of Women with Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy. J. Women’s Health 2021, 30, 1556–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Radu, V.D.; Vasilache, I.A.; Costache, R.C.; Scripcariu, I.S.; Nemescu, D.; Carauleanu, A.; Nechifor, V.; Groza, V.; Onofrei, P.; Boiculese, L.; et al. Pregnancy Outcomes in a Cohort of Patients Who Underwent Double-J Ureteric Stenting-A Single Center Experience. Medicina 2022, 58, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. LeFevre, M. Urinary tract infections during pregnancy. Am. Fam. Physician 2000, 61, 713–720. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kalinderi, K.; Delkos, D.; Kalinderis, M.; Athanasiadis, A.; Kalogiannidis, I. Urinary tract infection during pregnancy: Current concepts on a common multifaceted problem. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018, 38, 448–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yan, L.; Jin, Y.; Hang, H.; Yan, B. The association between urinary tract infection during pregnancy and preeclampsia: A meta-analysis. Medicine 2018, 97, e12192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Văduva, C.-C.; Constantinescu, C.; Radu, M.M.; Văduva, A.R.; Pănuş, A.; Ţenovici, M.; DiŢescu, D.; Albu, D.F. Pregnancy resulting from IMSI after testicular biopsy in a patient with obstructive azoospermia. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2016, 57, 879–883. [Google Scholar]
  11. Albu, D.F.; Albu, C.C.; Văduva, C.-C.; Niculescu, M.; Edu, A. Diagnosis problems in a case of ovarian tumor-case presentation. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2016, 57, 1437–1442. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Enătescu, I.; Craina, M.; Gluhovschi, A.; Giurgi-Oncu, C.; Hogea, L.; Nussbaum, L.A.; Bernad, E.; Simu, M.; Cosman, D.; Iacob, D.; et al. The role of personality dimensions and trait anxiety in increasing the likelihood of suicide ideation in women during the perinatal period. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 42, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Enatescu, V.R.; Bernad, E.; Gluhovschi, A.; Papava, I.; Romosan, R.; Palicsak, A.; Munteanu, R.; Craina, M.; Enatescu, I. Perinatal characteristics and mother’s personality profile associated with increased likelihood of postpartum depression occurrence in a Romanian outpatient sample. J. Ment. Health 2017, 26, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Adam, A.M.; Vasilache, I.A.; Socolov, D.; Stuparu Cretu, M.; Georgescu, C.V.; Vicoveanu, P.; Mihalceanu, E.; Harabor, A.; Socolov, R. Risk Factors Associated with Severe Disease and Intensive Care Unit Admission of Pregnant Patients with COVID-19 Infection-A Retrospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Socolov, D.; Socolov, R.; Gorduza, V.E.; Butureanu, T.; Stanculescu, R.; Carauleanu, A.; Pavaleanu, I. Increased nuchal translucency in fetuses with a normal karyotype-diagnosis and management: An observational study. Medicine 2017, 96, e7521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Covali, R.; Socolov, D.; Socolov, R.; Pavaleanu, I.; Carauleanu, A.; Akad, M.; Boiculese, V.L.; Adam, A.M. Complete Blood Count Peculiarities in Pregnant SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients at Term: A Cohort Study. Diagnostics 2021, 12, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Amiri, M.; Lavasani, Z.; Norouzirad, R.; Najibpour, R.; Mohamadpour, M.; Nikpoor, A.R.; Raeisi, M.; Marzouni, H.Z. Prevalence of urinary tract infection among pregnant women and its complications in their newborns during the birth in the hospitals of Dezful city, Iran, 2012–2013. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2015, 17, e26946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mazor-Dray, E.; Levy, A.; Schlaeffer, F.; Sheiner, E. Maternal urinary tract infection: Is it independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcome? J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009, 22, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kayastha, B.; Tamrakar, S.R. Maternal and Perinatal Outcome of Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy at Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 2022, 20, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Knottnerus, B.J.; Geerlings, S.E.; van Charante, E.P.M.; Ter Riet, G. Toward a simple diagnostic index for acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Ann. Fam. Med. 2013, 11, 442–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. de Cueto, M.; Aliaga, L.; Alós, J.I.; Canut, A.; Los-Arcos, I.; Martínez, J.A.; Mensa, J.; Pintado, V.; Rodriguez-Pardo, D.; Yuste, J.R.; et al. Executive summary of the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection: Guidelines of the Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (SEIMC). Enfermedades Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 2017, 35, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Azami, M.; Jaafari, Z.; Masoumi, M.; Shohani, M.; Badfar, G.; Mahmudi, L.; Abbasalizadeh, S. The etiology and prevalence of urinary tract infection and asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women in Iran: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2019, 19, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Belete, M.A.; Saravanan, M. A Systematic Review on Drug Resistant Urinary Tract Infection Among Pregnant Women in Developing Countries in Africa and Asia; 2005–2016. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 1465–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, W.H.; Chen, J.J.; Sun, Q.; Wang, L.P.; Jia, Y.F.; Xuan, B.B.; Xu, B.; Sheng, H.M. Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma urealyticum and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among Chinese women with urinary tract infections in Shanghai: A community-based cross-sectional study. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018, 44, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nana, T.; Bhoora, S.; Chibabhai, V. Trends in the epidemiology of urinary tract infections in pregnancy at a tertiary hospital in Johannesburg: Are contemporary treatment recommendations appropriate? South. Afr. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 36, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rhodes, A.; Evans, L.E.; Alhazzani, W.; Levy, M.M.; Antonelli, M.; Ferrer, R.; Kumar, A.; Sevransky, J.E.; Sprung, C.L.; Nunnally, M.E. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 304–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bone, R.C.; Balk, R.A.; Cerra, F.B.; Dellinger, R.P.; Fein, A.M.; Knaus, W.A.; Schein, R.M.; Sibbald, W.J. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 1992, 101, 1644–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Townsend, S.R.; Schorr, C.; Levy, M.M.; Dellinger, R.P. Reducing mortality in severe sepsis: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Clin. Chest Med. 2008, 29, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rivers, E.; Nguyen, B.; Havstad, S.; Ressler, J.; Muzzin, A.; Knoblich, B.; Peterson, E.; Tomlanovich, M. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 345, 1368–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.W.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Seymour, C.W.; Liu, V.X.; Iwashyna, T.J.; Brunkhorst, F.M.; Rea, T.D.; Scherag, A.; Rubenfeld, G.; Kahn, J.M.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Singer, M. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 762–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. World Health Organization. Statement on Maternal Sepsis; Contract No.: WHO/RHR/17.02; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  33. Levy, M.M.; Artigas, A.; Phillips, G.S.; Rhodes, A.; Beale, R.; Osborn, T.; Vincent, J.-L.; Townsend, S.; Lemeshow, S.; Dellinger, R.P. Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: A prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2012, 12, 919–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Knowles, S.J.; O’Sullivan, N.P.; Meenan, A.M.; Hanniffy, R.; Robson, M. Maternal sepsis incidence, aetiology and outcome for mother and fetus: A prospective study. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015, 122, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Escobar, M.F.; Echavarría, M.P.; Zambrano, M.A.; Ramos, I.; Kusanovic, J.P. Maternal sepsis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM 2020, 2, 100149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Vaught, A.J. Maternal sepsis. Semin. Perinatol. 2018, 42, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Abir, G.; Bauer, M.E. Maternal sepsis update. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2021, 34, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hafez, T. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formula. Am. J. Cardiol. 2007, 99, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Colgan, R.; Williams, M.; Johnson, J.R. Diagnosis and treatment of acute pyelonephritis in women. Am. Fam. Physician 2011, 84, 519–526. [Google Scholar]
  40. Vincent, J.-L.; Moreno, R.; Takala, J.; Willatts, S.; De Mendonça, A.; Bruining, H.; Reinhart, C.; Suter, P.; Thijs, L.G. The SOFA (Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment) Score to Describe Organ Dysfunction/Failure: On Behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (See Contributors to the Project in the Appendix); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  41. Qobadi, M.; Dehghanifirouzabadi, A. Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and Its Association with Preterm Labor: Findings From the Mississippi Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2009–2011. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2015, 2 (Suppl. S1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Banhidy, F.; Acs, N.; Puho, E.H.; Czeizel, A.E. Pregnancy complications and birth outcomes of pregnant women with urinary tract infections and related drug treatments. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2007, 39, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Balachandran, L.; Jacob, L.; Al Awadhi, R.; Yahya, L.O.; Catroon, K.M.; Soundararajan, L.P.; Wani, S.; Alabadla, S.; Hussein, Y.A. Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy and Its Effects on Maternal and Perinatal Outcome: A Retrospective Study. Cureus 2022, 14, e21500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Harabor, V.; Mogos, R.; Nechita, A.; Adam, A.-M.; Adam, G.; Melinte-Popescu, A.-S.; Melinte-Popescu, M.; Stuparu-Cretu, M.; Vasilache, I.-A.; Mihalceanu, E. Machine Learning Approaches for the Prediction of Hepatitis B and C Seropositivity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Adam, A.M.; Popa, R.F.; Vaduva, C.; Georgescu, C.V.; Adam, G.; Melinte-Popescu, A.S.; Popa, C.; Socolov, D.; Nechita, A.; Vasilache, I.A.; et al. Pregnancy Outcomes, Immunophenotyping and Immunohistochemical Findings in a Cohort of Pregnant Patients with COVID-19-A Prospective Study. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bolton, M.; Horvath, D.J., Jr.; Li, B.; Cortado, H.; Newsom, D.; White, P.; Partida-Sanchez, S.; Justice, S.S. Intrauterine growth restriction is a direct consequence of localized maternal uropathogenic Escherichia coli cystitis. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e33897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cohen, R.; Gutvirtz, G.; Wainstock, T.; Sheiner, E. Maternal urinary tract infection during pregnancy and long-term infectious morbidity of the offspring. Early Hum. Dev. 2019, 136, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zonda, G.I.; Mogos, R.; Melinte-Popescu, A.S.; Adam, A.M.; Harabor, V.; Nemescu, D.; Socolov, D.; Harabor, A.; Melinte-Popescu, M.; Hincu, M.A.; et al. Hematologic Risk Factors for the Development of Retinopathy of Prematurity-A Retrospective Study. Children 2023, 10, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cleves, M.A.; Malik, S.; Yang, S.; Carter, T.C.; Hobbs, C.A. Maternal urinary tract infections and selected cardiovascular malformations. Birth Defects Res. Part A Clin. Mol. Teratol. 2008, 82, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Howley, M.M.; Feldkamp, M.L.; Papadopoulos, E.A.; Fisher, S.C.; Arnold, K.E.; Browne, M.L. Maternal genitourinary infections and risk of birth defects in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Birth Defects Res. 2018, 110, 1443–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mason, M.M.; Nackeeran, S.; Lokeshwar, S.; Carino Mason, M.R.; Kohn, T.; Shah, H.N.; Ramasamy, R. A comparison of adverse pregnancy events between ureteral stents and percutaneous nephrostomy tubes in the treatment of nephrolithiasis during pregnancy: A propensity score-matched analysis of a large multi-institutional research network. World J. Urol. 2022, 41, 1721–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sheiner, E.; Mazor-Drey, E.; Levy, A. Asymptomatic bacteriuria during pregnancy. J. Matern. Neonatal Med. 2009, 22, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Geerlings, S.E. Clinical Presentations and Epidemiology of Urinary Tract Infections. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016, 4, 4–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lee, H. Procalcitonin as a biomarker of infectious diseases. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2013, 28, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Simon, L.; Gauvin, F.; Amre, D.K.; Saint-Louis, P.; Lacroix, J. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2004, 39, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yo, C.H.; Hsieh, P.S.; Lee, S.H.; Wu, J.Y.; Chang, S.S.; Tasi, K.C.; Lee, C.C. Comparison of the test characteristics of procalcitonin to C-reactive protein and leukocytosis for the detection of serious bacterial infections in children presenting with fever without source: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2012, 60, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bunduki, G.K.; Adu-Sarkodie, Y. The usefulness of C-reactive protein as a biomarker in predicting neonatal sepsis in a sub-Saharan African region. BMC Res. Notes 2020, 13, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lelubre, C.; Anselin, S.; Zouaoui Boudjeltia, K.; Biston, P.; Piagnerelli, M. Interpretation of C-reactive protein concentrations in critically ill patients. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 124021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tujula, B.; Kokki, H.; Räsänen, J.; Kokki, M. Procalcitonin; a feasible biomarker for severe bacterial infections in Obstetrics and Gynecology? Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2018, 97, 505–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yamashita, H.; Yuasa, N.; Takeuchi, E.; Goto, Y.; Miyake, H.; Miyata, K.; Kato, H.; Ito, M. Diagnostic value of procalcitonin for acute complicated appendicitis. Nagoya J. Med. Sci. 2016, 78, 79–88. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tan, E.K.; Tan, E.L. Alterations in physiology and anatomy during pregnancy. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2013, 27, 791–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jabbour, J.P.; Ciotti, G.; Maestrini, G.; Brescini, M.; Lisi, C.; Ielo, C.; La Pietra, G.; Luise, C.; Riemma, C.; Breccia, M.; et al. Utility of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as predictors of Gram-negative bacteremia in febrile hematological outpatients. Support. Care Cancer 2022, 30, 4303–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gopalakrishnan, N.; Dhanapriya, J.; Muthukumar, P.; Sakthirajan, R.; Dineshkumar, T.; Thirumurugan, S.; Balasubramaniyan, T. Acute kidney injury in pregnancy—A single center experience. Ren. Fail. 2015, 37, 1476–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bellomo, R. Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup. Acute renal failure-definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: The Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit. Care 2004, 8, 204–212. [Google Scholar]
  65. Taber-Hight, E.; Shah, S. Acute Kidney Injury in Pregnancy. Adv. Chronic Kidney Dis. 2020, 27, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rathod, A.T.; Malini, K.V. Study of Obstetric Admissions to the Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital. J. Obstet. Gynecol. India 2016, 66 (Suppl. S1), 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shields, A.; de Assis, V.; Halscott, T. Top 10 Pearls for the Recognition, Evaluation, and Management of Maternal Sepsis. Obs. Gynecol. 2021, 138, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes of the evaluated groups.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes of the evaluated groups.
VariableGroup 1 (n = 62 Patients with Urosepsis)Group 2 (n = 121 Patients with Uncomplicated UTI)Group 3 (n = 183 Patients as Controls)p Value
Demographic characteristicsAge, years (mean ± SD)29.6 ± 6.1926.12 ± 5.7427.8 ± 8.110.52
Medium (n/%)Rural = 32 (51.6%)
Urban = 30 (48.3%)		Rural = 64 (52.8%)
Urban = 57 (47.1%)		Rural = 107 (58.4%)
Urban = 76 (41.5%)		0.86
Parity (mean ± SD)2.06 ± 2.081.56 ± 0.51.36 ± 0.480.06
ComorbiditiesPrevious cesarean section (n/%)Yes—10 (16.1%)Yes—30 (24.7%)Yes—46 (25.1%)0.32
Immunosuppression (n/%)Yes—20 (32.2%)Yes—17 (14%)Yes—10 (5.4%)<0.001
UHN (n/%)Yes—53 (85.4%)Yes—33 (27.2%)Yes—0 (0%)<0.001
UHN grade (n/%) *I—12 (22.7%)
II—34 (64.1%)
III—7 (13.2%)		I—6 (18.8%)
II—20 (60.6%)
III—3 (21.2%)		-<0.001
UHN location (n/%) *Left—9 (16.9%)
Right—31 (58.4%)
Bilateral-13 (24.5%)		Left—7 (21.2%)
Right—23 (69.6%)
Bilateral-3 (9%)		-<0.001
Nephrolithiasis (n/%)Yes—9 (14.5%)Yes—7 (5.7%)-0.04
Pyelonephritis (n/%)Yes—35 (56.4%)Yes—0 (0%)-<0.001
Double-J ureteric stentingYes—14 (22.5%)Yes—6 (4.9%)-<0.001
Gestational age at diagnosis, weeks (mean ± SD)25.47 ± 6.2929.17 ± 5.44-0.010
Time interval from symptoms to admission, days (mean ± SD)5.00 ± 1.722.78 ± 1.31-<0.001
Time interval from admission to delivery, days (mean ± SD)7.16 ± 3.3727.78 ± 14.23 <0.001
Pregnancy outcomesType of birth (n/%)Cesarean—41 (66.1%)
Vaginal—21 (33.8%)		Cesarean—83 (68.5%)
Vaginal—38 (31.4%)		Cesarean—116 (63.3%)
Vaginal—67 (36.6%)		0.88
Birthweight, g (mean ± SD)2938.8 ± 693.673037.2 ± 509.33236.11 ± 398.50.068
Apgar score at 1 min (mean ± SD)7.69 ± 1.688.14 ± 1.988.47 ± 0.730.11
Gestational age at birth (mean ± SD)36.2 ± 2.9337.5 ± 2.0438.5 ± 1.130.03
Preterm birth (n/%)Yes—17 (27.4%)Yes—16 (13.2%)Yes—10 (5.4%)<0.001
Premature rupture of membranes (n/%)Yes—14 (22.5%)Yes—6 (4.9%)Yes—8 (4.3%)<0.001
Fetal growth restriction (n/%)Yes—8 (12.9%)Yes—13 (10.7%)Yes—15 (8.1%)0.51
Pre-eclampsia (n/%)Yes—6 (9.6%)Yes—6 (4.9%)Yes—1 (0.5%)0.001
Thrombotic complications (n/%)Yes—3 (4.8%)Yes—3 (2.4%)Yes—1 (0.5%)0.08
NICU admission (n/%)Yes—17 (27.4%) Yes—19 (15.7%)Yes—8 (4.3%)<0.001
ARDS (n/%)Yes—8 (12.9%)Yes—11 (9.09%)Yes—6 (3.2%)0.01
Neonatal infections (n/%)Yes—7 (11.2%)Yes—15 (12.3%)Yes—15 (8.1%)0.46
Postpartum UTI (n/%)Yes = 20 (32.2%)Yes—7 (5.7%)Yes—3 (1.6%)<0.001
Postpartum vaginal infections (n/%)Yes = 14 (22.5%)Yes—4 (3.3%)Yes—16 (8.7%)<0.001
UTI—urinary tract infection; SD—standard deviation; UHN—ureterohydronephrosis; NICU—neonatal intensive care unit; ARDS—acute respiratory distress syndrome; * from patients who developed ureterohydronephrosis.
Table 2. Paraclinical characteristics of the patients with urological disorders during admission to the urology department.
Table 2. Paraclinical characteristics of the patients with urological disorders during admission to the urology department.
VariableGroup 1 (n = 62 Patients with Urosepsis)Group 2 (n = 121 Patients with Uncomplicated UTI)p Value
Pretreatment leukocyte number/mm3 (mean ± SD)18,916.67 ± 3356.7414,691 ± 2636.38<0.001
Post-treatment leukocyte number/mm3 (mean ± SD)15,672.78 ± 3582.62 12,177.78 ± 2076.41<0.001
Pretreatment CRP value, mg/dL (mean ± SD) 131.38 ± 70.7281.7 ± 70.340.004
Post-treatment CRP value, mg/dL (mean ± SD)88.30 ± 56.3463.49 ± 44.020.041
Procalcitonin, ng/mL (mean ± SD)5.22 ± 1.35--
qSOFA score (mean ± SD)2.25 ± 0.64--
SOFA score (mean ± SD)9.16 ± 0.32
UTI—urinary tract infection; SD—standard deviation; CRP—C-reactive protein; eGFR—estimated glomerular filtration rate; (q)SOFA—(quick) sepsis-related organ failure assessment.
Table 3. Results from conditional logistic model including patients with urological disorders and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Table 3. Results from conditional logistic model including patients with urological disorders and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Adverse Pregnancy OutcomeaOR95% Confidence Interval Lower Limit95% Confidence Interval Upper Limitp Value
Preterm birth2.471.155.330.02
PPROM5.592.0215.40<0.001
IUGR1.230.483.140.66
Pre-eclampsia2.070.636.650.22
NICU2.020.964.260.06
ARDS1.480.563.890.42
aOR—adjusted odds ratio; UTI—urinary tract infection; PPROM—premature rupture of membranes; IUGR—intrauterine growth restriction; NICU—neonatal intensive care unit admission; ARDS—acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Radu, V.-D.; Vicoveanu, P.; Cărăuleanu, A.; Adam, A.-M.; Melinte-Popescu, A.-S.; Adam, G.; Onofrei, P.; Socolov, D.; Vasilache, I.-A.; Harabor, A.; et al. Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Urosepsis and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections—A Retrospective Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 2129. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122129

AMA Style

Radu V-D, Vicoveanu P, Cărăuleanu A, Adam A-M, Melinte-Popescu A-S, Adam G, Onofrei P, Socolov D, Vasilache I-A, Harabor A, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Urosepsis and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections—A Retrospective Study. Medicina. 2023; 59(12):2129. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122129

Chicago/Turabian Style

Radu, Viorel-Dragos, Petronela Vicoveanu, Alexandru Cărăuleanu, Ana-Maria Adam, Alina-Sinziana Melinte-Popescu, Gigi Adam, Pavel Onofrei, Demetra Socolov, Ingrid-Andrada Vasilache, AnaMaria Harabor, and et al. 2023. "Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Urosepsis and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections—A Retrospective Study" Medicina 59, no. 12: 2129. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122129

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop