6 research outputs found
MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF MULTIDRUG RESISTANT ENTEROBACTER CLOACAE BLOOD ISOLATES FROM A UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
urpose: to evaluate the epidemiological relationship between 3rd generation cephalosporin resistant Enterobacter cloacae blood isolates collected from patients in the University Hospital in Varna city during the period March 2014 and January 2017 and to characterize the ESBLs production in these isolates.
Materials and methods: a total of 47 consecutive (nonduplicate) 3rd generation cephalosporin resistant isolates of Enterobacter cloacae, obtained from blood samples of patients admitted in different wards in Varna University Hospital, were investigated. Antimicrobial susceptibility to set of antimicrobial agents was tested by disc diffusion method and Phoenix (BD), and the results were interpreted according to EUCAST guidelines 2017. Identification of ESBL encoding genes was performed by PCR and sequencing. Isolates were genotyped by ERIC PCR.
Results: The antimicrobial susceptibility in the whole collection of isolates, shown in decreasing order, is as follows: amikacin, 97.8% < levofloxacin, 76.6% < trimethoprime/ sulphometoxazole, 40.4% < ciprofloxacin, 19% < gentamicin, 8.4% < cefepime, 4.2% < piperacillin/ tazobactam, tobramycin, 2.1%. Multidrug resistance was detected in 70.2% of the isolates. The most widespread enzyme was CTX-M-15, found in 95.5% (n=43). Nine different ERIC types were detected. The dendrogram of similarity revealed three main clones of E. cloacae: Clone I, comprising two closely related subclones (ERIC type A and Aa) (similarity coefficient 0.92), was predominant, detected in Haematology (n=9), Haemodialysis (n=8), ICU (n=6), Cardio surgery (n=3), Pulmonology (n=4) and Gastroenterology (n=1); Clones II (ERIC type C) and III were presented by 5, and 3 isolates with identical profiles, obtained from patients, hospitalized in different wards. The ERIC profiles K, L, M and P, were found in single isolates only and were interpreted as sporadic.
Conclusions: multi-drug resistance in E. cloacae was associated with successful intrahospital dissemination of three CTX-M-15 producing E. cloacae clones. Clone I was predominant, demonstrating high cross-transmission, epidemic and invasive potential. BlaCTX-M-15 was identified as a major mechanism of resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins in E. cloacae
Microbiological and Molecular Genetic Studies on the Prevalence and Mechanisms of Resistance to Beta-Lactams and Quinolones in Clinically Relevant Enterobacter Spp. // ΠΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π²ΡΡΡ Ρ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΡΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΊΡΠΌ Π±Π΅ΡΠ°-Π»Π°ΠΊΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΈ Enterobacter spp.
This study aims to investigate the species composition, sensitivity and mechanisms of resistance to beta-lactams and quinolones in clinically significant isolates of Enterobacter spp., collected at St. Marina University Hospital - Varna for the period 2014-2017., as well as to determine the clonal relationship of the isolates. One hundred and seventy-five clinical isolates, isolated between March 2014 and January 2017 at St. Marina University Hospital - Varna, were investigated. The study also included an E. cloacae isolate from a hospital environment. The analysis of the results obtained in our research and its comparison with the literature gives us the reason to draw the following conclusions:
1) The examined isolates E. cloacae complex belonged to 99.2% of the species E. hormaechaei. Conventional identification methods, particularly the Phoenix100 automated system, do not have sufficient discriminatory power to distinguish the species in the E. cloacae complex. Hsp60 sequencing is a rapid and specific method for identification and distinguishing species in Enterobacter cloacae complex.
2) We found a high level of resistance (57%) to third-generation cephalosporins in the studied isolates as well as a high level of resistance to the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs in the clinical practice: piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin and gentamicin. Following the carbapenem imipenem and meropenem, the highest activity against Enterobacter spp. was amikacin.
3) The phenotypic methods for detecting ESBLs in clinical isolates of Enterobacter spp. showed unsatisfactory sensitivity.
4) Molecular genetic studies have shown resistance to third-generation cephalosporins among Enterobacter spp. isolates are due to the presence of ESBLs enzymes in over 85%, with the leading importance of CTX-M-15 for E. cloacae complex and CTX-M-3 ESBLs for E. aerogenes. In single isolates, we detected SHV-12 ESBL production. In non-ESBLs-producing isolates, resistance is most likely due to the hyperproduction of AmpC enzymes. Only one isolate has been shown to produce the DHA-1 enzyme.
5) Conjugation experiments demonstrated the plasmid localization of the ESBLs genes and PMQR and confirmed their contribution to the development of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins and selection of quinolone resistance.
6) The epidemiological study found extensive intra-hospital dissemination and long-term presence of one major clone (clone A) of E. cloacae complex with pronounced invasive potential. The microbiological study of the hospital environment proved E. cloacae complex identical (clone A, ERIC type Aa) with clinical isolates from different hospital units.
7) In 59% of Enterobacter spp. we found a presence of PMQR with qnrB dominance (90%) and a relatively low prevalence of qnrA, qnrS and aac (6') - Ib-cr (single isolates). QnrB was associated with CTX-M-15, qnrA - with SHV-12, and qnrS - with CTX-M-3. The only isolate with the qnrB4 allele produces CTX-M-3 and DHA-1. In over 50% of the isolates, we have shown chromosomal mutations for the gyrA and parC genes.Π¦Π΅Π»ΡΠ° Π½Π° Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΡ Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ ΡΡΡΠ΄ Π΅ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Ρ Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΡΠ°Π², ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΊΡΠΌ Π±Π΅ΡΠ°-Π»Π°ΠΊΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ Ρ
ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ - Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ Enterobacter spp., ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ Π² Π£ΠΠΠΠββ Π‘Π²Π΅ΡΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π°ββ β ΠΠ°ΡΠ½Π° Π·Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° 2014 - 2017 Π³., ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎ ΠΈ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ²ΡΡΠ·Π°Π½ΠΎΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅. ΠΡΠ² Π²ΡΡΠ·ΠΊΠ° Ρ ΡΠΎΠ²Π° Π±ΡΡ
Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅Ρ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠ°, ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ Π² ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° ΠΌΠ°ΡΡ 2014 Π³.- ΡΠ½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈ 2017 Π³. Π² Π£ΠΠΠΠ '' Π‘Π²Π΅ΡΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π°'', ΠΠ°ΡΠ½Π°. Π ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ²Π°Π½Π΅ΡΠΎ Π±Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ ΠΈ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°Ρ E. cloacae ΠΎΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΠ½Π° ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π°. ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈ Π² Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈΠΌ Ρ Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡ Π½ΠΈ Π΄Π°Π²Π°Ρ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π΄Π° Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ:
1) ΠΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ Π. cloacae complex ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π΄Π»Π΅ΠΆΠ°Ρ
Π° Π² 99.2% ΠΊΡΠΌ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π° E. hormachaei. ΠΠΎΠ½Π²Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ Π·Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π² ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° Phoenix100 Π½ΡΠΌΠ° Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ½Π° Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΠ»Π° Π΄Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠΈ Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡ E. cloacae complex. Πsp60 ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π΅ΡΠΎ Π΅ Π±ΡΡΠ· ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ Π·Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°Π²Π°Π½Π΅ Π½Π° Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π² Enterobacter cloacae complex.
2) Π£ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ Π²ΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΎ Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ (57%) ΠΊΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ ΠΎΡ III-ΡΠ° Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ²Π°Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎ ΠΈ Π²ΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΎ Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΊΡΠΌ Π½Π°ΠΉ-ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ ΠΈΠ·ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π·Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΠΈ Π»Π΅ΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠΈ Π² ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΠ°: piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin ΠΈ gentamicin. Π‘Π»Π΅Π΄ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ±Π°ΠΏΠ΅Π½Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ imipenem ΠΈ meropenem, Ρ Π½Π°ΠΉ - Π³ΠΎΠ»ΡΠΌΠ° Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡ Enterobacter spp. ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π²Π° amikacin.
3) ΠΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΠ½ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ Π·Π° Π΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° ESBLs ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ Enterobacter spp. ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ
Π° Π½Π΅Π·Π°Π΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½Π° ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΎΡΡ.
4) Π§ΡΠ΅Π· ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ
ΠΌΠ΅, ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΠ° ΠΊΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ ΠΎΡ III-ΡΠ° Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Enterobacter spp. ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΡΠ»ΠΆΠΈ Π½Π° Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° ESBLs Π΅Π½Π·ΠΈΠΌΠΈ Π² Π½Π°Π΄ 85%, Ρ Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΎΡΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° CTX-M-15 Π·Π° Π. cloacae complex ΠΈ CTX-M-3 ESBLs Π·Π° E. aerogenes. ΠΡΠΈ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° SHV-12 ESBL. ΠΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π±Π΅Π· ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° ESBLs ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΡΠ»ΠΆΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΉ-Π²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½Π° Ρ
ΠΈΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΡΠ° Π½Π° AmpC Π΅Π½Π·ΠΈΠΌΠΈ. Π‘Π°ΠΌΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°Ρ Π±Π΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° DHA-1 Π΅Π½Π·ΠΈΠΌ.
5) ΠΠΎΠ½ΡΠ³Π°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ
Π° ΠΏΠ»Π°Π·ΠΌΠΈΠ΄Π½Π°ΡΠ° Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° ESBLs Π³Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ PMQR ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡ
Π° ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠΌ Π·Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΊΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ ΠΎΡ III-ΡΠ° Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π΅ Π½Π° Ρ
ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ.
6) ΠΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ²Π°Π½Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠ° Π²ΡΡΡΠ΅Π±ΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΠ½Π° Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°ΠΉΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½ ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ½ (ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ½ Π) E. cloacae complex Ρ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°Π·Π΅Π½ ΠΈΠ½Π²Π°Π·ΠΈΠ²Π΅Π½ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π». ΠΡΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΎ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½Π΅ Π½Π° Π±ΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΠ½Π° ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π° Π±Π΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°Ρ E. cloacae complex, Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ (ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ½ Π, ERIC ΡΠΈΠΏ ΠΠ°) Ρ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π½Π° Π±ΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ°.
7) Π 59% ΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ Enterobacter spp. ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° PMQR Ρ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π΅ Π½Π° qnrB (90%) ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ»Π°Π±ΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° qnrA, qnrS ΠΈ aac(6')-Ib-cr (Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈ). QnrB ΡΠ΅ Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈΡΠ° Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° CTX-M-15, qnrA - Ρ SHV-12, Π° qnrS - Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° CTX-M-3. ΠΠ΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°Ρ Ρ Π°Π»Π΅Π» qnrB4 ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠΈΡΠ° CTX-M-3 ΠΈ DHA-1. Π Π½Π°Π΄ 50% ΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ
ΠΌΠ΅ Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ·ΠΎΠΌΠ½ΠΈ ΠΌΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π·Π° gyrA ΠΈ parC Π³Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅
Etiological spectrum of enteric infections in patients hospitalized in the university hospital `Saint Marina` - Varna
Π¦Π΅Π»: Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΠΈ Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ½Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ Π½Π° Π½Π°ΠΉ-ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° Π³Π°ΡΡΡΠΎ-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡ (ΠΠΠ’) Π² ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈ, Ρ
ΠΎΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ Π² ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Π½Π΅-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΠΠΠ`Π‘Π²Π΅ΡΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π°` - ΠΠ°ΡΠ½Π° Π² ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΠ»ΠΈ 2016 - ΡΠ΅Π²ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈ 2017Π³. ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ: ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈ ΡΠ° ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΎ 2165 ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ Π·Π° Π½Π°ΠΉ-ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π±Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΈ Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠ½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈ Π°Π³Π΅Π½ΡΠΈ: Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Y. enterocolitica, V. cholerae (Π±ΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ, n=2047), E. coli (n=1311), Campylobacter spp. (n=50), C. difficile (n=428), Rotavirus, Norovirus, Adenovirus ΠΈ Astrovirus (n=560) ΡΡΠ΅Π· ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ Π·Π° Π±Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎ-Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π·Π° Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, C. difficile ΠΈ Campylobacter spp. Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΠ°ΡΠΈ: ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡ Π±ΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΡΠ° 19.9% (n=430). ΠΠΈΡΡΡΠ½Π° Π΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΡΡΠ° Π±Π΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½Π° Π² 66.7% ΠΎΡ Π²ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈ (Rotavirus, 50%; Norovirus, 7.4%; Adenovirus, 7%; Astrovirus, 2.3%); Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Π΅Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π½ΠΈ E. coli ΠΈ Campylobacter spp. ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ Π±Π΅ ΡΡΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ 10.9%, 1.4%, 1.6% ΠΈ 1.6%. ΠΡ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΎ 428 ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π° Π·Π° C. difficile, ΡΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΠ³Π΅Π½Π½ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ²Π΅ Π±ΡΡ
Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ Π² 17.8%, ΠΊΠ°ΡΠΎ ΡΡΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ 16.6% (n=64) ΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ ΠΎΡ Π½Π΅-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠΈ (n=385) Π±ΡΡ
Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈ ΠΈ 27.9% (n=12) ΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈ, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈ, Ρ
ΠΎΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ Π² ΠΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΠΠΠ`Π‘Π²Π΅ΡΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π°` (n=43). ΠΡΠΈ 14 ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ² Π²ΡΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ° Π΄ΠΎ 3Π³. Π±ΡΡ
Π° Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΈ ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΊΠΎΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ (Adenovirus + Astrovirus + Rotavirus + Norovirus; Astrovirus + C. difficilae + S. enteritidis; Rotavirus + Adenovirus + S. enteritidis ΠΈ Π΄Ρ.). Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Salmonella spp. Π½Π°ΠΉ-ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΏ Π±Π΅ S. enteritidis (n=29), ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ ΠΎΡ S. typhimurium (n=14). Π Π΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΠ° Π½Π° ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Salmonella spp., ΠΊΡΠΌ Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΈ Π΅ ΡΡΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ: pefloxacin - 4%; trimethoprim/sulfΠ°methoxazole - 8.5%; ampicillin - 40%. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅: Ρ Π½Π°ΠΉ - Π³ΠΎΠ»ΡΠΌΠΎ Π΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π·Π° ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΠΠ’ ΡΠ° Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π°Π³Π΅Π½ΡΠΈ, Ρ Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΎΡΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Rotavirus Π·Π° Π²ΡΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ° Π΄ΠΎ 3Π³., ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π²Π°Π½ΠΈ ΠΎΡ C. difficile ΠΈ Salmonella spp. Π₯ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ trimethoprim/sulfΠ°methoxazole ΡΠ° ΡΡΡ ΡΡΡ
ΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½Π° Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡ Salmonella spp.Aim: to study the etiological spectrum and antimi- crobial resistance of most frequently isolated infectious agents of enteric infections in patients, hospitalized in the infectious and non-infectious wards of University Hospital `Saint Marina` - Varna for the period July 2016 - February 2017.Πaterial and methods: a total of 2165 fecal sam- ples were tested for the most important bacterial and viral agents: Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Y. en- terocolitica, V. cholerae (tested samples, n=2047), E. coli (n=1311), Campylobacter spp. (n=50), C. difficile (n=428), Rotavirus, Norovirus, Adenovirus and As- trovirus (n=560).Results: The positive fecal samples were 19.9% (n=430). Viral etiology was identified in 66.7% of all positive samples: Rotavirus, 50%; Norovirus, 7.4%;Adenovirus, 7%; Astrovirus, 2.3%; Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., EPEC and Campylobacter spp. were de- tected in 10.9%, 1.4%, 1.6% and 1.6% respectively. In the group of 428 samples tested for C. difficile, toxi- genic strains were identified in 17.8% (16.6% (n=64) from the samples, collected from the non-infectious wards (n=385) and respectively - 27.9% (n=12) from these, obtained from patients, hospitalized in the In- fectious wards of the Hospital (n=43). Co-infections were found in 14 patients in the age of 0 - 5 years: Ade- novirus + Astrovirus + Rotavirus + Norovirus; Astro-virus + C. difficile + S. enteritidis; Rotavirus + Adeno- virus + S. enteritidis, etc. Among Salmonella spp. iso- lates, S. enteritidis (n=29) and S. typhimurium (n=14) were the most common serotypes. The resistance rates of Salmonella spp. isolates to antimicrobial agents is as followes: pefloxacin - 4%; trimethoprim/sulfΠ°methox- azole - 8.5%; ampicillin - 40%.Conclusion: The viral pathogens were the most commonly identified etiological agents, with the lead- ing role of Rotavirus in the age of 0 - 5 years, followed by C. difficile and Salmonella spp. Quinolones and tri- methoprim/sulfΠ°methoxazole are with preserved ac- tivity against Salmonella spp
ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT ISOLATES OF ENTEROBACTER SPP., OBTAINED FROM PATIENTS, HOSPITALISED IN VARNA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL DURING THE PERIOD 2014 β 2016
Purpose: Rapidly increasing antimicrobial resistance in medically important bacterial species from family Enterobacteriaceae is one of the most significant microbiological, clinical and epidemiological issues of modern medicine. The aim of this study is to investigate the antibiotic susceptibility of clinically significant isolates of Enterobacter spp., obtained from patients, hospitalized in University Hospital βSaint Marinaβ β Varna during the period 2014 β 2016.
Material and methods: a total of 433 clinical isolates of Enterobacter spp.from blood cultures, urine and wound secretions were studied. The species identification was made by conventional, semi-automated (Crystal, BD) and automated systems (Phoenix, BD). The susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP), ceftazidime (CAZ), meropenem (MEM), gentamicin (Gm), amikacin (Ak), ciprofloxacin (CIP), levofloxacin (LVX), trimethoprime/sulfamethoxazole (SXT) and tetracycline (Tet) was tested by disc-diffusion method and / or automated system Phoenix 100, BD. The results were interpreted according to EUCAST 2016 guidelines.
Results: The resistance in the studied collection of isolates, shown in increasing order is as follows: Πk, 4.2% <LVF, 25.4% <TZP, 37.4% <Tet, 38.7% <SXT, 40% <CIP, 44.1% <Gm, 49.7% <CAZ, 57%. Meropenem demonstrated fully preserved activity. In the group of CAZ resistant isolates, the levels of antimicrobial resistance are: Πk, 5.7% <LVF, 42.9% <TΠ΅t, 52.4% <SXT, 60.3% <TZP, 64.4% <CIP, 84.6% <Gm, 86.2%. The rate of CAZ resistant Enterobacter spp. was 66.9% among the urine isolates, 61.9% - among those from blood culture and 46.3% - in the group of isolates from wound secretions. In the three mentioned groups of isolates, the lowest level of resistance was detected to Ak (1.6%; 4%; 6.9%). The isolates from wound and blood cultures demonstrated the highest level of resistance to Gm (60.3%, 42.9%) and the urine isolates β to Π’et (60%) and CIP (56.9%).
Conclusions: CAZ resistant Enterobacter spp. demonstrated significantly higher levels of resistance in comparison to the whole studied group especially to quinolones and aminoglycosides. The highest level of CAZ resistant Enterobacter spp. was detected in the group of urine isolates
First Report of DHA-1 Producing Enterobacter cloacae Complex Isolate in Bulgaria
The aim of the present study was to reveal the characteristics of an Enterobacter cloacae complex isolate producing DHA-1 AmpC enzyme recovered from a patient hospitalized in St Marina Hospital, Varna.Materials and methods: Susceptibility testing, conjugation experiments, isoelectric focusing, PCR and sequencing were carrying out.Results: Of 176 Enterobacter spp. isolates only one isolate was positive for blaDHA. The sequencing revealed the presence of blaDHA-1 and blaCTX-M-3. The antimicrobial susceptibility testing showed higher resistance rates to almost all beta-lactams (ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefepime, amoxicillinclavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam), tobramycin, gentamycin, trimethoprim/sulphomethoxazole and quinolones (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin). The isolate was susceptible to imipenem, meropenem and amikacin. The isoelectric focusing showed a band at pI 5.4 without ceftazidime and cefotaxime activity; a band at pI 7.8 with cefoxitin activity and another - with pI 8.4 with cefotaxime activity. Conjugation experiments were successful only for blaCTX-M-3 carrying determinants.Β Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge this is the first report of DHA-1 producing isolate in Bulgaria. The emergence of DHA-1 producing E. cloacae complex demonstrates the possibility for further dissemination of the gene encoding this enzyme. Infectious control measures are needed for the prevention of this phenomenon
PYOGENIC LIVER ABSCESS - ETIOLOGICAL SPECTRUM AND SENSITIVITY TO ANTIBIOTICS
Introduction: Pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) is a serious challenge in modern medical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the etiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of PLA-associated microbial pathogens, diagnosed in hospitalized patients at St. Marina University Hospital of Varna during the period between 2001 and 2016.Materials and Methods: A total of 84 clinical samples (pus aspirates, n=72, bile samples, n=7, and blood cultures, n=5), collected from PLA patients, hospitalized in the Second Surgery Clinic were analyzed. Species identification was performed by conventional methods. Antimicrobial susceptibility was studied by disk diffusion method and Phoenix 100 (BD). The results were interpreted according to CLSI and EUCAST standards.Results: Causative bacterial agents belonging to 15 different species were isolated in 59 cases (in 70%). E. coli (23.7%), K. pneumoniae (20%), E. cloacae (13.5%), E. faecalis (8.5%), P. mirabilis (5%) and P. aeruginosa (5%) dominated in the etiological spectrum. E. coli demonstrated the following levels of antimicrobial susceptibility: imipenem, amikacin, piperacillin/tazobactam, 100%; ceftazidime, cefepime, 90.9%; cefuroxime, 83.3%; amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, 77.8%; gentamicin, 75%; levofloxacin, cefalothin, 66.6%; ciprofloxacin, 63.6%; piperacillin, 58.3%; ampicillin, 45.5%. The following antimicrobial susceptibility rates were determined for K. pneumoniae: imipenem, 100%; amikacin, 92.3%; ceftazidime, cefepime, 80%; cefalothin, cefuroxime, 75%; levofloxacin, gentamicin, 66.6%; ciprofloxacin, 62.5%; piperacillin/tazobactam, 57.1%; piperacillin, 25% and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, 22.2%.Conclusions: E. coli and K. pneumonia are the predominant pathogens in PLA patients. Carbapenems are the most active antimicrobial agents followed by ceftazidime and cefepime. In the aminoglycoside group, amikacin demonstrates the best in vitro activity