4.5 Article

High endemic levels of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii among hospitals in southern Brazil

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 108-112

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.03.010

关键词

Health care-acquired infection; Molecular typing; Clonal dissemination

资金

  1. National Institute of Science and Technology [014/2008]
  2. National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS)-CNPq/Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Most published data on multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii (MDR Ab) are derived from outbreaks. We report incidence trends on health careeacquired infections due to MDR Ab over a 12-month period in the city of Porto Alegre in southern Brazil. Methods: Clinical and epidemiologic data were obtained from the local health care information system of the municipal health department. Polymerase chain reaction was used to detect the presence of the genes bla(OXA-23-like), bla(OXA-24-like), bla(OXA-51), and bla(OXA-58), and repetitive sequence-based polymerase chain reaction and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis were performed for molecular typing. Results: The highest rate of infection (9.0/1,000 inpatient-days) was identified in a trauma hospital. The gene blaOXA-23-like was identified in 99.0% of MDR Ab isolates. Eight main clonal groups were identified by molecular typing, and 3 of these were found in all hospitals. Conclusion: The presence of 3 clones in all hospitals demonstrates the ability of MDR Ab to spread among hospitals. Moreover, the occurrence of one particular clone (clone 4) throughout the study period suggests its increased ability to cause outbreaks and to remain in the environment. The monitoring of epidemic strains by molecular methods is of paramount importance to prevent or reduce the spread of MDR Ab. Copyright (C) 2012 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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