4.7 Article

A 12 year (1998-2009) antibiotic resistance surveillance of Klebsiella pneumoniae collected from intensive care and urology patients in 14 Dutch hospitals

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 66, 期 4, 页码 855-858

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq538

关键词

Enterobacteriaceae; beta-lactam antibiotics; fluoroquinolones; ESBLs

资金

  1. Bayer BV
  2. Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We evaluated the changes in antibiotic resistance from 1998 to 2009 of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from the intensive care units (ICUs) and urology services of 14 Dutch hospitals and the consequences for empirical therapy. Methods: Quantitative antibiotic susceptibility testing of K. pneumoniae was performed in a central laboratory using a microbroth dilution method. Breakpoints were as defined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). The prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and carbapene-mase-producing isolates was determined. Results: A significant increase in resistance among ICU isolates was observed for ceftazidime (4.2%-10.8%), ciprofloxacin (5.8%-18.5%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (11.9%-23.1%), and for cefuroxime (2.8%-7.9%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (13.5%-27.8%) among urology isolates. Among ICU isolates the prevalence of ESBLs increased significantly from 2% to 8%. Carbapenemase production was not demonstrated. Among ICU isolates the prevalence of multidrug resistance increased and has been >= 12% since 2004. Among urology isolates multidrug resistance was highest in 2009 at 7.4%. Overall, resistance was significantly higher among ICU isolates. Conclusions: We observed an increase in resistance among ICU and urology isolates and an increased prevalence of ESBLs among ICU isolates. Carbapenemase production was not demonstrated. A regular update of empirical treatment protocols based on actual surveillance data is justified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据