4.6 Article

Antimicrobial resistance of gram-negative bacteria: A six-year longitudinal study in a hospital in Saudi Arabia

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 737-745

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.01.004

关键词

Antibiotic resistance; Escherichia coli; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance is a major concern especially in light of lack of new antimicrobial agents. Here, we present antibiotic resistance pattern of gram-negative bacteria (GNB) over six years (2013-2018) in a hospital in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: The study included a report of the cumulative antibiogram of GNB. Interpretation of the antibacterial susceptibility tests was based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines and VITEK (R) 2 system. Results: There was a total of 32,890 GNB isolates and the most common were: Escherichia coli (69.8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (17.2%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.8%). Antimicrobial susceptibility of P. aeruginosa and E. coli did not change overtime, however, susceptibility to ceftazidime decreased from 92% to 85% in P. aeuroginosa. Yearly antimicrobial susceptibility did not change significantly overtime for K. pneumoniae. ESBL isolates among K. peumoniae and E. coli was about 26% and 20%, respectively (p = 0.0068). For ESBL E. coli, the least effective antibiotics were ciprofloxacin (26%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (34%). For ESBL K. pneumoniae, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and nitrofurantoin had poor activity. For K. pneumoniae, both ciprofloxacin (90%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (86%) had better coverage than for E. coli. K. pneumoniae showed less susceptibility to nitrofurantoin than E. coli (20% vs. 92%). Conclusion: Antibiotic resistance among P. aeruginosa and E. coli did not change overtime (2013-2018) and the rate of ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae was high. Thus, continued surveillance is needed. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences.

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

4.6
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