4.7 Article

Surveillance of extended-spectrum β-lactamases from clinical samples and faecal carriers in Barcelona, Spain

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages 1152-1155

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dki395

Keywords

ESBLs; CTX-M; SHV; PER-1

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to characterize and compare the extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms isolated from clinical samples and faecal carriers in 2001 and 2002. Methods: A total of 5251 Enterobacteriaceae isolated from clinical samples and 1321 stool samples were evaluated for the presence of ESBLs. The stool samples were spread onto plates of MacConkey agar containing 2 mg/L cefotaxime for selection of ESBL-producing strains. These strains were defined as those showing synergism between amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and third-generation cephalosporins. The beta-lactamases involved were characterized by isoelectric focusing, PCR assays and DNA sequencing. Results: The prevalence of ESBL-producing strains among clinical Enterobacteriaceae was 1.7%. Of these, 87.6% produced CTX-M, 25.8% produced SHV and 2.2% were TEM-type-producing strains. All clinical ESBL-producing strains were Escherichia coli, with the exception of four Klebsiella pneumoniae and one Citrobacter freundii. The prevalence of faecal carriage of ESBL-producing organisms was 3.3%. Of these, 75% produced CTX-M-type enzymes followed by 22.7% SHV-producing strains. All faecal ESBL-producing strains were E. coli except for one Enterobacter cloacae and one Proteus mirabilis. This latter strain produced the PER-1 enzyme reported for the first time in Spain. Conclusions: The prevalence of ESBL-producing strains in stool samples was higher than that observed in clinical samples from the same period. The different types of ESBLs found were similar in both contexts. The most prevalent ESBLs were the CTX-M-related enzymes, with nine different types, followed by SHV-12.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available