4.6 Article

Comparative activities of ampicillin and teicoplanin against Enterococcus faecalis isolates

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-022-02753-1

关键词

Enterococcus faecalis; Ampicillin; Teicoplanin; Antibiotic resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis in surgical patients and found an increasing incidence of E. faecalis infections in the clinic. The results showed that ampicillin and teicoplanin had similar efficacy in treating E. faecalis infections, suggesting that ampicillin could be used as effective empiric therapy.
Background Enterococcus faecalis remains one of the most common pathogens causing infection in surgical patients. Our goal was to evaluate the antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis, causing infections in a surgical clinic, against two antibacterial drugs, ampicillin and teicoplanin. One commonly administered in the past for such infections, ampicillin, and another newer, teicoplanin, which demonstrated exceptionally good efficacy. Methods Data from 1882 isolates were retrieved from the microbiology department database during two 5-year periods. Standard biochemical methods were employed for the identification of the isolates. The prevalence of E. faecalis among patients with clinical evidence of infection in a surgical oncology ward was assessed. Confidence interval (CI) as well as standard error (SE) were calculated. Moreover, the annual incidence of E. faecalis infections in this surgical ward was recorded. The susceptibility of E. faecalis to ampicillin and teicoplanin was studied and compared using Fisher's exact test. Results and conclusion Results showed that the incidence of E. faecalis infections in the surgical clinic was increasing. Ampicillin, in the later year period, was not statistically different from teicoplanin in treating E. faecalis infections. Consequently, ampicillin seems currently to be an effective antibiotic against such infections that could be used as empiric therapy.

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