4.1 Article

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the western region of Saudi Arabia: prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility pattern

期刊

ANNALS OF SAUDI MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 513-516

出版社

K FAISAL SPEC HOSP RES CENTRE
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2012.513

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) emerged in 1960 and was a problem confined largely to the healthcare setting, or hospital-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA). In the 1990s, community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) infections appeared. In Saudi Arabia, the prevalence of MRSA has increased in the past ten years and severe community-acquired infection has been reported. Our objective was to investigate the prevalence of MRSA and their antibiotic susceptibilities in the western region of Saudi Arabia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective review of the medical records of 186 S aureus infected patients diagnosed from November 2009 through October 2010. METHODS: S aureus was Identified based on Gram stain, catalase and coagulase tests. Susceptibility testing was performed using antibiotic discs and the VITEK 2 system. RESULTS: MRSA was isolated in 39.5% of the specimens. The isolates were commonly associated with wound, skin, and soft tissue infections (87.3%). The prevalence of MRSA was highest among patients who were 56 years old or older (52.2%). CA-MRSA infections represented 31.5% of community S aureus infections, while HA-MRSA accounted 52.6% of hospital S aureus (P=.0029). All MRSA isolates in our study were susceptible to vancomycin, linozolid and teicoplanin. However, multi-resistance was observed in 29.1% of the isolates and was significantly higher among HA-MRSA (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MRSA was 39.5%, and infection was commonly associated with wound, skin, and soft tissue infections. MRSA was more prevalent in hospitals and among older patients. All MRSA susceptible to vancomycin, linozolid and teicoplanin.

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

4.1
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