Printer Friendly

Carbapenem resistance among clinical and environmental Gram-negative isolates recovered from hospitals in Gaza strip, Palestine.

Introduction

Carbapenems, which were developed in the 1980s, are a [beta]-lactam group of drugs that are considered as last resort antibiotics for treating serious infections with multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB). The broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity of carbapenems includes Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is part of the reason why they were considered as appropriate therapy for the treatment of healthcare-associated infections. Back then, almost all Enterobacteriaceae were sensitive to carbapenems, (1) but this is not the case anymore. The change of the scenario is attributed to the emergence of carbapenem resistance (CR) in non-fermenter GNB (Acinetobacter baumannii and P. aeruginosa) as well as in fermenter GNB (Enterobacteriaceae) over the past few years. (2)

Various mechanisms are involved in CR; these include carbapenemases production, decreased permeability caused by porin mutations, efflux pump overexpression, and changes in penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). (3) The emergence of CR is a public health concern. The most notable genera that can develop CR are E. coli and K. pneumoniae. However, CR has also been reported in Pseudomonas. CRE bacteria have high levels of resistance to other antibiotics. Infections caused by these bugs are life-threatening. One report cites they can contribute to death in up to 50% of patients who become infected. (4)

The World Health Organization (WHO)'s global report issued in April 2014 had some disturbing conclusions. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance revealed the world is on the verge of entering a post-antibiotic era. At present, the full extent of how this problem is affecting people, and more expansively in a global scenario, is unclear and needs to be quantified. Dependable data that is predictable and up to date is urgently needed to determine the extent of this potential dilemma. (5)

Gaza strip has been witnessing an escalation of antibiotic resistance. The studies conducted concerning this have yielded scary results which are sounding the alarm for urgent action. (6,7) Carbapenems are one of the few therapeutic agents we have left. But now, with the scarcity in data concerning the prevalence of CR among clinical and environmental GNB isolates in the region, things are getting out of hand and efforts must be targeted to finding urgent solutions. The main objective of this study was to screen clinical and environmental Gram-negative isolates for CR.

Methods

Permissions and ethical considerations

Prior the initiation of the research work, approval (PHCR/HC/138/16) was obtained from the Helsinki Committee on 01 August 2016. In addition, permissions were obtained from the Ministry of Health for collection of samples and obtaining clinical isolates.

Setting and duration of the study

This cross-sectional study was performed at the three major Gaza Strip hospitals; Al-Shifa hospital, the European Gaza hospital and AlNaser hospital. The study lasted from September 2016 to March 2017.

Sampling

A total of 140 clinical isolates (from the Microbiology laboratory), 150 environmental swabs, and 110 air samples were collected from the Al-Shifa and the European Gaza hospitals. In addition, 70 clinical isolates were collected from Al-Naser hospital (from the Microbiology laboratory). Air samples and environmental swabs were obtained from the following departments: intensive care units (ICUs), pediatric ICU (PICU), neonatal ICU (NICU), and surgery departments. Environmental surfaces including bed rails, bed sheets, tables, door handles, sinks, soaps and floors were sampled using pre-moistened sterile swabs. These swabs were used to swab an area of 3X3 cm with the aid of sterile plastic windows. For air samples collection, 150 liters of air were aspirated for each sample from different sites of the investigated departments using an air sampler. The 150 liters were distributed as 50 liters for each culture media that was used. MacConkey agar plates were used to grow GNB, whereas nutrient agar (NA) and Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) (HiMedia, Mumbai, India) plates were used for total plate count and yeast and molds (fungi) count, respectively. All isolates/air and environmental swab samples were collected during the same period distributed over multiple seasons (fall, winter, and spring), and at different times of the day (before and after 12 pm).

Microbiological investigation

The isolates were identified based on colony color and morphology in addition to conventional biochemical tests (e.g., oxidase, indole, methyl red, Voges-Proskauer, citrate, and urease tests). Ambiguous results were confirmed using API 20 E kit (bioMerieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) according to the manufacturer instructions. Microbial counts (total bacterial and fungal counts) were expressed in terms of colony forming units (CFU) per cubic m.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

The susceptibilities of the isolates to carbapenems and other antibiotics including amikacin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, piperacillin, tetracycline and trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole were determined using the disk diffusion (modified Kirby-Bauer) method according to the methods and interpretation criteria of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). (8)

The multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index and MDR

The MAR index was calculated for each isolate by dividing the number of antibiotics for which each isolate was resistant by the number of antibiotics for which each isolate was tested. Isolates were determined as MDR by their resistance to one or more antibiotics from each of at least three different families.

Modified Hodge test

Isolates that showed resistance to at least one of the tested carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem) were further investigated for carbapenemases production by MHT according to CLSI guidelines. (8) A lawn of pre-tested carbapenem-sensitive E. coli was streaked onto Mueller Hinton agar plates and left for a while to dry. Then a 10 [micro]g carbapenem disk was placed in the center of the test area; ertapenem disk was used for the isolates that were resistant to ertapenem, and imipenem disk was used for the isolates that showed resistance to imipenem, while meropenem disk was used for the isolates that were resistant to meropenem. Test organisms were then streaked from the edge of the disk to the edge of the plate. After incubation, the plates were examined for an inward distortion of zone of inhibition (clover leaves appearance).

Data analysis

Collected data were summarized, tabulated and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program version 24 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Chi square test was used to detect significant differences among hospitals and/ or samples. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Out of 110 air samples, only 19 exhibited growth for GNB (17.3%). Although the European Gaza hospital showed the highest positive rate, no statistically significant difference was found (Chi-square=0.448, p=0.339). The highest incidence 11/42 (26.2%) of GNB was in the ICUs, while the surgery departments' air samples showed the least 3/38 (7.9%) (Chi-square=4.788, p=0.188). The greatest percentage 16/59 (27.1%) of GNB was isolated in fall while the lowest 1/37 (2.7%) was in winter (Chi-square=9.587, p=0.008). Citrobacter and

Enterobacter spp. were the most frequently isolated bacteria. The average levels of bacteria obtained from air samples were (7.8 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]) and of fungi were (5.2 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]). Levels of fungi were the highest 13/37 (35.1%) during winter (Chi-square=25.233, p<0.001). A total of 21 out of 150 (14%) environmental swabs were positive for GNB with a significant difference between the two hospitals as well as between the departments. With respect to hospitals, the European Gaza hospital had the highest positivity rate 15/68 (22.1%) (Chi-square=6.7097, p=0.009). Regarding departments, PICU exhibited the highest positivity rate 9/22 (40.9%) (Chi-square=15.588, p=0.001). A higher percentage 15/81 (18.5%) of GNB was recovered from samples collected in the morning than from samples collected at noontime 6/69 (8.7%) (Chi-square=2.986, p=0.083). Klebsiella spp. was the most commonly isolated bacteria.

The isolates showed 100% resistance to ampicillin (226/226), amoxicillin (226/226), and aztreonam (247/247). Resistance to chloramphenicol was (95/226) 42%, trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole (200/226) 88.5%, cefuroxime (219/226) 96.9%, gentamicin (2/247) 0.8%, amikacin (3/247) 1.2%, tetracycline (141/226) 62.4%, piperacillin (245/247) 99.1%, ceftriaxone (10/21) 47.6%, ciprofloxacin (35/247) 14.1%, and ceftazidime (96/226) 42.5%. All Enterobacteriaceae isolates had a MAR index higher than 0.2, while those of Pseudomonas had an average of 0.2. All Enterobacteriaceae isolates were 100% MDR, while those of Pseudomonas were 47.6% MDR. Antibiotic resistance profiles of the isolated organisms are presented in Table 1.

The overall percentage of CR among GNB was (30/247) 12.1%. CR among Enterobacteriaceae was (30/226) 13.2% and (0/21) 0% in Pseudomonas. With respect to CR among hospitals, AlNaser hospital had the highest resistance rate 12/70 (17.1%), followed by European Gaza hospital 8/62 (12.9%), while that of Al-Shifa hospital was (10/115) 8.6% (Chi-square=2.954, p=0.228). Resistance to imipenem, ertapenem and meropenem is presented in Table 2. CR among air samples, environmental swabs and clinical isolates is illustrated in Table 3. CR in Klebsiella spp. was (13/90) 14.4% and in E. coli (9/91) 9.8%, while in other Enterobacteriaceae it was (8/45) 17.7% (Chi-square=1.805, p=0.405). The ICUs exhibited the highest CR rate, 9/17 (52.9%), followed by surgery departments 3/8 (37.5%), and PICU 4/12 (33.3%). Outpatient clinics had a rate of 3/49 (6.1%), while other departments had a CR percentage of 11/19 (57.8%) (Chi-square=25.498, p<0.001).

Among 30 isolates that were resistant to at least one of the tested carbapenems, seven were positive (23.3%) for MHT. Inward distortion of zone of inhibition was an indicator of carbapenemases production. Out of 7 MHT positive isolates, the frequency of Klebsiella spp. was (4/7) 57.1% and that of Citrobacter spp. was (3/7) 42.9%.

Discussion

Carbapenems were officially introduced in clinical practice at Gaza Strip hospitals in 2007. The main carbapenems in use are meropenem and imipenem. In Gaza Strip, carbapenems are only restricted to be used in hospitals. The overall percentage of CR among GNB was (30/247) 12.1%. This is comparable to the prevalence rate (13.8%) obtained from Germany, (9) a little higher than that of Jordan 5.6%, (10) Nepal 7.4% (11) and Colombia 8.8%, (12) but much lower than that obtained from Egypt, 50.8%. (13) Our study found a CRE rate of (30/226) 13.2%, which is close to that of India, 12.26%, (14) and lower than that of Saudi Arabia (53% showed resistance to meropenem and 36% to imipenem). (15) However, other studies have reported lower rates compared to Gaza. A rate of 4.2% was observed in the USA, (16) 6% in Qatar, (15) 6% in Pakistan, (15) 2.5% and 7.84% in Lebanon, (15) and 9.1% in Iran. (15) These proportional variances could be attributed to the restrictions imposed on antibiotic use and the time each country started using carbapenems. Antimicrobial therapeutic protocols and practices vary from one hospital/city/country to another, making comparisons and interpretations of prevalence of CRE variations a difficult task. Sample size, sample sources, the time when the study took place, laboratory techniques used and other factors may contribute to variable prevalence rates.

Our finding that ICUs exhibited the highest CR rate, 9/17 (52.9%), comes in accordance with the outcome of a Turkish study done by Meric et al. (15) and an American study conducted by Guh et al. (16) This might be due to the weak health conditions of hospitalized patients in ICUs and their need for intensive use of antibiotics. However, outpatient clinics also showed a considerable CR rate, 3/49 (6.1%) which indicates that CR is not limited to hospitals but can also be acquired from the community. This happened irrespective of the recent introduction of carbapenem drugs, 11 years ago in Gaza Strip hospitals. Thus, infection control measures should be established not only for hospitals but should be promoted also in communities.

Klebsiella spp. was found to be the most resistant to carbapenems 13/90 (14.4%), followed by E. coli 9/91 (9.8%). This is similar to the finding of many reports coming from countries in the Middle East, (15) but divergent from the outcome of other different studies in Asia and Middle East countries where P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii had the highest CR rates. (15) This could be attributed to different antimicrobial treatment protocols for the aforementioned bacteria.

In this study, seven isolates out of 30 (23.3%) were positive for MHT. A higher rate (47.4%) was documented in Colombia. (12) Much higher rates were documented in Pakistan (69%), USA (76%), and India (62.5%). (17) This could mean that the MHT-negative isolates harbor different mechanisms for CR other than the production of carbapenemases (e.g., efflux pump or altered porins). It is worth mentioning that the class of carbapenemase cannot be determined by MHT and some isolates show a slight indentation but do not produce carbapenemase (producing false positive results). One of the limitations of this study is that the result was not verified with molecular techniques, as the main aim of the study was to present data on the carbapenem resistance among Gram negative bacteria.

In the present study, the average levels of bacteria obtained from air samples were (7.8 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]) and of fungi (5.2 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]). Our investigation showed a total bacterial load exceeding 7.5 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3] which, according to de Aquino Neto FR and de Goes Siqueira LF is considered contaminated. (18) The study also exhibited a total fungal load exceeding 3 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3] which, according to Cappitelli and colleagues is also considered contaminated. (19) This finding emphasizes the need for regular indoor air quality assessment. A study done in Thailand revealed similar average levels of bacteria (7.8 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]). (20) A Korean study conducted reported comparable averages of bacteria (7.2 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]) and fungi (5.5 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3]). (21) A study from Poland found lower averages of 2.5 x [10.sup.2] - 4.4 x [10.sup.2] CFU/[m.sup.3] for airborne bacteria, (22) while higher averages of (2.4x103 CFU/[m.sup.3]) for airborne bacteria were reported in Iran. (23)

GNB were isolated from (19/110) 17.2% of air samples. A lower rate (3.05%) was documented in Turkey, while a higher rate (56.9%) was found in an Ethiopian study. (24) In our study, ICUs exhibited the highest positivity rate 11/42 (26.2%). Crowded conditions and insufficient ventilation may be contributing factors. The greatest percentage 16/59 (27.21) of GNB was isolated in fall (p=0.008) while the lowest 1/37 (2.7%) was in winter. Since most diseases peak and are likely to spread in summer and fall, seasons might have contributed to this variation.

With respect to bacteria isolated from environmental swabs, 47.3% (71/150) were culture positive. That is lower than the finding (57.4%) of an Iranian study. (23) GNB accounted for 29.6% (21/71) of the total positive cultures. A much lower rate of (4.9%) was documented in a German study. In the present study, (15/81) 18.5% of GNB were recovered from samples collected in the morning, whereas (6/69) 8.7% were from samples collected at noontime. This finding is supported by the work of Lerner et al., (25) giving an assumption that time period amongst cleaning and testing is a contributing factor, hence emphasizing the importance of regular cleaning. CR among GNB isolated from environmental swabs was (5/20) 25%. This is comparable to the finding (24%) of Lerner et al. (2013). (25) These findings about surfaces contaminated with CR bacteria may render increasingly difficult-to-treat nosocomial infections. Since these surfaces serve as cross-transmission reservoirs of infections, disinfectants, such as bleach, should be checked for quality and strength.

Our study has some limitations. First, it is worthwhile to mention that the clinical data of clinical isolates were not available for this study. Second, we performed this study for a moderate time in the three main referral hospitals in Gaza Strip. So, this may underestimate or overestimate the real prevalence of carbapenem resistance among clinical and environmental Gram-negative isolates. Third, molecular identification was not performed, such that the types of carbapenem resistance associated genes were not investigated and confirmed.

Conclusion

The results revealed that carbapenem resistance is becoming a serious problem in Gaza. Efforts need to be focused on promoting improved infection control and preventing overuse and misuse of antibiotics.

doi: 10.18683/germs.2018.1142

Received: 31 July 2018; revised: 29 August 2018; accepted: 30 August 2018.

Authors' contributions statement: RHR performed the laboratory experiments, collected the data and performed the statistical analysis. NAL collected the data, interpreted the findings and drafted the manuscript. AAE designed the study, supervised the laboratory experiments and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest: All authors--none to disclose.

Funding: None to declare.

References

(1.) Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. Carbapenems: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:4943-60. [Crossref]

(2.) Gniadek TJ, Carroll KC, Simner PJ. Carbapenem-resistant non-glucose-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli: the missing piece to the puzzle. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:1700-10. [Crossref]

(3.) Meletis G, Exindari M, Vavatsi N, Sofianou D, Diza E. Mechanisms responsible for the emergence of carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Hippokratia 2012;16:303-7.

(4.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in healthcare settings. 2016. Accessed on: 15 January 2018. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/index.html.

(5.) World Health Organization. Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance. 2014. Accessed on: 15 January 2018. Available at: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/.

(6.) Elmanama AA, Abdelateef N. Antimicrobial resistance of enteric pathogens isolated from acute gastroenteritis patients in Gaza strip, Palestine. Int Arabic J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;2:1-5.

(7.) Al Laham NA. Distribution and antimicrobial resistance pattern of bacteria isolated from operation theaters at Gaza strip. J Al Azhar Univ Gaza (Nat Sci), 2012; 14:19-34.

(8.) Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 26th ed. CLSI supplement M100s, 2016: CLSI.

(9.) Heudorf U, Buttner B, Hauri AM, et al. Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria - analysis of the data obtained through a mandatory reporting system in the Rhine-Main region, Germany, 2012-2015. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2016;11:Doc10. [Crossref]

(10.) Wadi J, Haloub N, Al Ahmad M, Samara A, Romman A. Prevalence of meropenem susceptibility among Gram-negative pathogens isolated from intensive care units in Jordan. Int Arabic J Antimicrob Agents 2011; 1:1-8.

(11.) Karn S, Pant ND, Neupane S, Khatiwada S, Basnyat S, Shrestha B. Prevalence of carbapenem resistant bacterial strains isolated from different clinical samples: study from a tertiary care hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. J Biomed Sci 2017;3:11-15. [Crossref]

(12.) Vanegas JM, Parra OL, Jimenez JN. Molecular epidemiology of carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacilli from infected pediatric population in tertiary-care hospitals in Medellin, Colombia: an increasing problem. BMC Infect Dis 2016;16:463. [Crossref]

(13.) Khalifa HO, Soliman AM, Ahmed AM, et al. High carbapenem resistance in clinical Gram-negative pathogens isolated in Egypt. Microb Drug Resist 2017;23:838-44. [Crossref]

(14.) Nair PK, Vaz MS. Prevalence of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae from a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India. J Microbiol Infect Dis 2013;3:207-10. [Crossref]

(15.) Zahedi Bialvaei A, Samadi Kafil H, Ebrahimzadeh Leylabadlo H, Asgharzadeh M, Aghazadeh M. Dissemination of carbapenemases producing Gram negative bacteria in the Middle East. Iran J Microbiol 2015;7:226-46.

(16.) Guh AY, Limbago BM, Kallen AJ. Epidemiology and prevention of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the United States. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2014;12:565-80. [Crossref

(17.) Soni R, Bansal S, Subhedar V, Nayak A, Sharma V. Efficacy of modified Hodge test for phenotypic confirmation of carbapenemase producing Gramnegative bacteria from ICU in a tertiary care hospital. J Immunol Immunopathol 2016;18:113-6. [Crossref]

(18.) de Aquino Neto FR, de Goes Siqueira LF. Guidelines for indoor air quality in offices in Brazil. Proc Healthy Build 2000;4:549-54.

(19.) Cappitelli F, Fermo P, Vecchi R. Chemical-physical and microbiological measurements for indoor air quality assessment at the Ca'Granda Historical Archive, Milan (Italy). Water Air Soil Pollut 2009;201:109-20. [Crossref]

(20.) Apisarnthanarak A, Tantajina P, Laovachirasuwan P, Weber DJ, Singh N. Is aerosalization a problem with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in Thailand hospital? Open Forum Infect Dis 2016;3:ofW124. [Crossref]

(21.) Park DU, Yeom JK, Lee WJ, Lee KM. Assessment of the levels of airborne bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria, and fungi in hospital lobbies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10:541-55. [Crossref]

(22.) Augustowska M, Dutkiewicz J. Variability of airborne microflora in a hospital ward within a period of one year. Ann Agric Environ Med 2006;13:99-106.

(23.) Shamsizadeh Z, Nikaeen M, Nasr Esfahani B, Mirhoseini SH, Hatamzadeh M, Hassanzadeh A. Detection of antibiotic resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in various hospital environments: potential sources for transmission of Acinetobacter infections. Environ Health Prev Med 2017;22:44. [Crossref]

(24.) Leta D, Aragaw K, Merid Y. Identification, characterization and antibiotic susceptibility of indoor airborne bacteria in selected wards of Hawassa University Teaching and Referral Hospital, South Ethiopia. OALib J 2016;1:1-12.

(25.) Lerner A, Adler A, Abu-Hanna J, Meitus I, Navon Venezia S, Carmeli Y. Environmental contamination by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol 2013;51:177-81. [Crossref]

Rawan H. Rida [1], Nahed A. Al Laham [2], *, Abdelraouf A. Elmanama [3]

[1] MSc, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Islamic University of Gaza, P. O. Box 108, Gaza Strip, Palestine; [2] PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Al Azhar University-Gaza, P. O. Box 1277, Gaza Strip, Palestine; [3] PhD, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Islamic University of Gaza, P. O. Box 108, Gaza Strip, Palestine.

* Corresponding author: Nahed A. Al Laham, PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Al Azhar University-Gaza, P. O. Box 1277, Gaza Strip, Palestine. n.lahamm@alazhar.edu.ps, dr.allaham@hotmail.com
Table 1. Antibiotic resistance profiles of the isolated
organisms from air samples, environmental swabs, in
addition to clinical isolates

Antimicrobial            Escherichia spp.   Klebsiella spp.

Number of isolates              91                90

                                    Resistance %

Ceftazidime          N          40                36
                     %          44                40
Ciprofloxacin        N          18                13
                     %         19.8              14.4
Chloramphenicol      N          43                37
                     %         47.3              41.1
Piperacillin         N          91                90
                     %         100                100
Tetracycline         N          61                56
                     %          67               62.2
Ampicillin           N          91                90
                     %         100                100
Amoxicillin          N          91                90
                     %         100                100
T rimethoprim/       N          84                81
  Sulfamethoxazole   %         92.3               90
Aztreonam            N          91                90
                     %         100                100
Cefuroxime           N          85                89
                     %         93.4              98.9
Gentamicin           N          0                  2
                     %          0                 2.2
Amikacin             N          1                  2
                     %         1.1                2.2
Ceftriaxone          N          NT                NT
                     %
Imipenem             N          7                  7
                     %         7.7                7.8
Ertapenem            N          1                  5
                     %         1.1                5.6
Meropenem            N          1                  1
                     %         1.09               1.1

                                 MAR index and MDR %

MAR index                      0.6                0.5
MDR %                          100%              100%

Antimicrobial            Enterobacter spp.   Citrobacter spp.

Number of isolates              16                  18

                                     Resistance %

Ceftazidime          N           7                  6
                     %         43.8                33.3
Ciprofloxacin        N           1                  0
                     %          6.3                 0
Chloramphenicol      N           4                  6
                     %          25                 33.3
Piperacillin         N          15                  18
                     %         93.8                100
Tetracycline         N           9                  9
                     %         56.3                 50
Ampicillin           N          16                  18
                     %          100                100
Amoxicillin          N          16                  18
                     %          100                100
T rimethoprim/       N          14                  13
  Sulfamethoxazole   %         87.5                72.2
Aztreonam            N          16                  18
                     %          100                100
Cefuroxime           N          16                  18
                     %          100                100
Gentamicin           N           0                  0
                     %           0                  0
Amikacin             N           0                  0
                     %           0                  0
Ceftriaxone          N          NT                  NT
                     %
Imipenem             N           0                  4
                     %           0                 22.2
Ertapenem            N           0                  1
                     %           0                 5.6
Meropenem            N           0                  0
                     %           0                  0

                                  MAR index and MDR %

MAR index                       0.5                0.5
MDR %                          100%                100%

Antimicrobial            Other E *   Pseudomonas spp.

Number of isolates          11              21

                               Resistance %

Ceftazidime          N       7              NT
                     %      64
Ciprofloxacin        N       3              0
                     %     27.3             0
Chloramphenicol      N       5              NT
                     %     45.5
Piperacillin         N      10              21
                     %      91             100
Tetracycline         N       6              NT
                     %     54.5
Ampicillin           N      11              NT
                     %      100
Amoxicillin          N      11              NT
                     %      100
T rimethoprim/       N       8              NT
  Sulfamethoxazole   %     72.7
Aztreonam            N      11              21
                     %      100            100
Cefuroxime           N      11              NT
                     %      100
Gentamicin           N       0              0
                     %       0              0
Amikacin             N       0              0
                     %       0              0
Ceftriaxone          N      NT              10
                     %                     47.6
Imipenem             N       2              0
                     %     18.1             0
Ertapenem            N       1              NT
                     %      1.1
Meropenem            N       0              0
                     %       0              0

                            MAR index and MDR %

MAR index                   0.6            0.2
MDR %                      100%           47.6%

E*--Enterobacteriaceae, MAR--multiple antibiotic resistance;
MDR--multidrug resistant; NT--not tested.

Table 2. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of
carbapenems for isolated organisms from air samples,
environmental swabs, in addition to clinical isolates

All tested         Imipenem (n=247)         Ertapenem (n=226)
isolates
               Frequency   Percentage   Frequency   Percentage

Sensitive         153         61.9         165         73.0
Intermediate      74          30.0         53          23.5
Resistant         20          8.1%          8          3.5%

All tested         Meropenem (n=247)
isolates
               Frequency   Percentage

Sensitive         218         88.3
Intermediate      27          10.9
Resistant          2          0.8%

Table 3. Resistance to carbapenems by source of isolate

Carbapenems        Air samples n=17     Environmental
                                          swabs n=20

                   S      I      R      S      I      R

Ertapenem     N    6      7      2      7      12     1
              %   40.0   46.7   13.3   35.0   60.0   5.0
Imipenem      N    4      8      5      4      12     4
              %   23.5   47.1   29.4   20.0   60.0   20.0
Meropenem     N    9      7      1      17     3      0
              %   52.9   41.2   5.9    85.0   15.0   0.0

Carbapenems       Clinical isolates   Chi-square   P-value
                        n=210

                   S      I      R

Ertapenem     N   152     34     5     Chi(4)=     <0.001
              %   79.6   17.8   2.6     29.409
Imipenem      N   145     54    11     Chi(4)=     <0.001
              %   69.0   25.7   5.2     35.545
Meropenem     N   192     17     1     Chi(4)=     <0.001
              %   91.4   8.1    0.5     24.593

I--intermediate; R--resistant; S--sensitive.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Asociatia pentru Cresterea Vizibilitatii Cercetarii Stiintifice (ACVCS)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original article
Author:Rida, Rawan H.; Laham, Nahed A. Al; Elmanama, Abdelraouf A.
Publication:GERMS
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2018
Words:4391
Previous Article:Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae as a hospital-acquired pathogen in the intensive care unit in Mansoura, Egypt.
Next Article:Soil contamination by Toxocara canis and human seroprevalence in the Attica region, Greece.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |