4.7 Article

Surveillance of extended-spectrum β-lactamases from clinical samples and faecal carriers in Barcelona, Spain

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 1152-1155

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dki395

关键词

ESBLs; CTX-M; SHV; PER-1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to characterize and compare the extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms isolated from clinical samples and faecal carriers in 2001 and 2002. Methods: A total of 5251 Enterobacteriaceae isolated from clinical samples and 1321 stool samples were evaluated for the presence of ESBLs. The stool samples were spread onto plates of MacConkey agar containing 2 mg/L cefotaxime for selection of ESBL-producing strains. These strains were defined as those showing synergism between amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and third-generation cephalosporins. The beta-lactamases involved were characterized by isoelectric focusing, PCR assays and DNA sequencing. Results: The prevalence of ESBL-producing strains among clinical Enterobacteriaceae was 1.7%. Of these, 87.6% produced CTX-M, 25.8% produced SHV and 2.2% were TEM-type-producing strains. All clinical ESBL-producing strains were Escherichia coli, with the exception of four Klebsiella pneumoniae and one Citrobacter freundii. The prevalence of faecal carriage of ESBL-producing organisms was 3.3%. Of these, 75% produced CTX-M-type enzymes followed by 22.7% SHV-producing strains. All faecal ESBL-producing strains were E. coli except for one Enterobacter cloacae and one Proteus mirabilis. This latter strain produced the PER-1 enzyme reported for the first time in Spain. Conclusions: The prevalence of ESBL-producing strains in stool samples was higher than that observed in clinical samples from the same period. The different types of ESBLs found were similar in both contexts. The most prevalent ESBLs were the CTX-M-related enzymes, with nine different types, followed by SHV-12.

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