[Pseudomonas aeruginosa: antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates. Castellón 2004-2008]
- PMID: 20232020
[Pseudomonas aeruginosa: antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates. Castellón 2004-2008]
Abstract
Retrospective study of antimicrobial susceptibility of 1.943 Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates to amikacin, tobramycin, gentamicin, ceftazidime, cefepime, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam and ciprofloxacin during a five year period. The percentage of resistance went from 2.07% to amikacin from 15.89% to ciprofloxacin. These percentages showed differences depending on the extra or intrahospital origin, departments and samples. Isolates from hospital patients were significantly more resistant than the ones from ambulatory patients (p < or = 0.001;tobramycin,13.74% vs 5.05%; gentamicin, 13.74% vs 8.26%; ceftazidime, 12.67% vs 4.24%; cefepime, 11.48% vs 7.07%; meropenem, 8.57% vs 2.06%), except for amikacin (1.98% vs 2.2%, p=0.74), piperacillin/ tazobactam (6.07% vs 4.55%, p=0.14) and ciprofloxacin (17.17% vs 13.97%, p=0.06).Critical care department and respiratory samples showed the highest resistance percentages while surgery department and invasive samples showed the lowest. Multidrug-resistance was found in 4.8% of the isolates. When comparing our data with those from our previous study (1992-2003), we observed a significant reduction in antibiotic resistance to amikacin (7.74% vs 2.07%, p<0.001), tobramycin (13.61% vs 10.26%, p<0.001), gentamicin (30.85% vs 14.73%, p<0,001), ceftazidime (14.63% vs 9,28%, p<0.001), cefepime (12.31% vs 9.71%, p=0.005), and meropenem (7.74% vs 2.07%, p=0.001); and there were no changes in resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam (4.26% vs 5.46%, p=0,06) and ciprofloxacin (16.02% vs 15.89%, p=0.89). In the last years, the susceptibility pattern of P. aeruginosa to antimicrobial agents has changed in our health district, and it is very different from the one described in national studies so it would be very important to monitor susceptibility of clinical isolates periodically.
Similar articles
-
In vivo development of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from the lower respiratory tract of Intensive Care Unit patients with nosocomial pneumonia and receiving antipseudomonal therapy.Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010 Dec;36(6):513-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2010.08.005. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010. PMID: 20926262
-
[Antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates in Castellón, Spain].Rev Esp Quimioter. 2006 Mar;19(1):60-4. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2006. PMID: 16688293 Spanish.
-
Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a tertiary care hospital.J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007 Feb;40(1):45-9. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007. PMID: 17332906
-
Pooled prevalence and trends of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates over the past 10 years in Turkey: A meta-analysis.J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019 Sep;18:64-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.01.032. Epub 2019 Feb 10. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019. PMID: 30753904
-
Antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in China: a review of two multicentre surveillance programmes, and application of revised CLSI susceptibility breakpoints.Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012 Nov;40(5):445-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.07.002. Epub 2012 Aug 19. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012. PMID: 22910455 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical