4.7 Article

High rate of faecal carriage of extended-spectrum β-lactamase and OXA-48 carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae at a University hospital in Morocco

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 350-354

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/1469-0691.12325

关键词

Multidrug-resistant bacteria; prevalence; stools

资金

  1. INSERM, Paris, France
  2. European Community (R-GNOSIS) [HEALTH-F3-2011-282512]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates are being increasingly reported, particularly from countries surrounding the Mediterranean area. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of carbapenemase- and extended-spectrum -lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae in rectal swabs from hospitalized patients in a University hospital in Morocco, and to compare the performance of three screening media: ChromID ESBL (bioMerieux), Brilliance CRE (OXOID, Thermofisher) and SUPERCARBA (home made). Genetic detection and plasmid analysis were performed by PCR and sequencing. Strain comparison was performed by multi-locus sequence typing and the Diversilab technique (bioMerieux). The prevalence of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae was high, with 33 ESBL producers (42.85%, mainly CTX-M-15) and 10 OXA-48 producers (13%), corresponding to two major clones of K.pneumoniae (70%) and a clone of Enterobacter cloacae (30%). The three screening media showed the same sensitivity for detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, whereas the SUPERCARBA medium was more specific than the two other media. The average faecal carriage of ESBL or carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae varied from 1x10(2) to >1x10(8) CFU/g of stools. This study shows a high prevalence of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and particularly of OXA-48 producers. The new carbapenem-containing medium, SUPERCARBA, was as sensitive as Brilliance CRE and ChromID ESBL, and more specific for the detection of Enterobacteriaceae expressing those carbapenemases.

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