4.7 Article

Community-onset extended-spectrum-b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli sequence type 131 at two Korean community hospitals: The spread of multidrug-resistant E-coli to the community via healthcare facilities

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2016.11.010

关键词

Escherichia coli; Sequence type 131; Extended-Spectrum-beta-Lactamase; Community-onset infection

资金

  1. National Health Insurance Service Ilsan hospital [CR 2016-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The recent molecular epidemiology of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli infection in two Korean community hospitals was evaluated in this prospective observational study. Methods: We collected non-duplicated E. coli isolates from consecutive, sequentially encountered patients with community-onset episodes between March and April 2016 in two community hospitals in Gyeonggi-do province, Korea. We studied the prevalence, clinical characteristics and molecular epidemiology of E. coli sequence type 131 (ST131) isolated from the community. Results: From a total of 213 E. coli isolates collected from the community, 94 (44.1%) were communityonset healthcare-associated isolates and 119 (55.9%) were community-associated isolates, of which urinary tract infection was the majority. A total of 55 (25.8%) of the 213 E. coli isolates were confirmed to have ESBL genes, which were mainly CTX-M types such as CTX-M-14 and CTX-M-15. There was no difference in the proportion of globally epidemic ST131 clones or that of O25, O16, H30, or H30Rx subclones between community-associated and community-onset healthcare-associated isolates. Conclusions: In this study, considerable ST131 E. coli isolations in the community were observed and about half of them were related to the history of a visit to the healthcare facilities, indicating the spread of multidrug-resistant E. coli to the community via healthcare facilities. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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