In vitro susceptibility of Actinobaculum schaalii to 12 antimicrobial agents and molecular analysis of fluoroquinolone resistance

Objectives To assess the in vitro susceptibility of Actinobaculum schaalii to 12 antimicrobial agents as well as to dissect the genetic basis of fluoroquinolone resistance. Methods Forty-eight human clinical isolates of A. schaalii collected in Switzerland and France were studied. Each isolate was identified by 16S rRNA sequencing. MICs of amoxicillin, ceftriaxone, gentamicin, vancomycin, clindamycin, linezolid, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, co-trimoxazole, nitrofurantoin and metronidazole were determined using the Etest method. Interpretation of results was made according to EUCAST clinical breakpoints. The quinolone-resistance-determining regions (QRDRs) of gyrA and parC genes were also identified and sequence analysis was performed for all 48 strains. Results All isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin, ceftriaxone, gentamicin, clindamycin (except three), vancomycin, linezolid and nitrofurantoin, whereas 100% and 85% were resistant to ciprofloxacin/metronidazole and co-trimoxazole, respectively. Greater than or equal to 90% of isolates were susceptible to the other tested fluoroquinolones, and only one strain was highly resistant to levofloxacin (MIC ≥32 mg/L) and moxifloxacin (MIC 8 mg/L). All isolates that were susceptible or low-level resistant to levofloxacin/moxifloxacin (n = 47) showed identical GyrA and ParC amino acid QRDR sequences. In contrast, the isolate exhibiting high-level resistance to levofloxacin and moxifloxacin possessed a unique mutation in GyrA, Ala83Val (Escherichia coli numbering), whereas no mutation was present in ParC. Conclusions When an infection caused by A. schaalii is suspected, there is a risk of clinical failure by treating with ciprofloxacin or co-trimoxazole, and β-lactams should be preferred. In addition, acquired resistance to fluoroquinolones more active against Gram-positive bacteria is possibl

The morbidity of laparoscopic radical cystectomy : analysis of postoperative complications in a multicenter cohort by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-Section of Uro-Technology

Purpose: To analyze postoperative complications after laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and evaluate its risk factors in a large prospective cohort built by the ESUT across European centers involved in minimally invasive urology in the last decade. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled, and data were retrospectively analyzed. Only oncologic cases were included. There were no formal contraindications for LRC: Also patients with locally advanced tumors (pT4a), serious comorbidities, and previous major abdominal surgery were enrolled. All procedures were performed via a standard laparoscopic approach, with no robotic assistance. Early and late postoperative complications were graded according to the modified Clavien–Dindo classification. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to explore possible risk factors for developing complications. Results: A total of 548 patients were available for final analysis, of which 258 (47 %) experienced early complications during the first 90 days after LRC. Infectious, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary were, respectively, the most frequent systems involved. Postoperative ileus occurred in 51/548 (9.3 %) patients. A total of 65/548 (12 %) patients underwent surgical re-operation, and 10/548 (2 %) patients died in the early postoperative period. Increased BMI (p = 0.024), blood loss (p = 0.021), and neoadjuvant treatment (p = 0.016) were significantly associated with a greater overall risk of experiencing complications on multivariate logistic regression. Long-term complications were documented in 64/548 (12 %), and involved mainly stenosis of the uretero-ileal anastomosis or incisional hernias. Conclusions: In this multicenter, prospective, large database, LRC appears to be a safe but morbid procedure. Standardized complication reporting should be encouraged to evaluate objectively a surgical procedure and permit comparison across studies.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe