PURPOSE: To describe the incidence and drug susceptibility profiles of uropathogenic extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) during a 10-year period and to identify differences in resistance patterns between urological and non-urological ESBL-EC isolates. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 191,564 urine samples obtained during 2001 to 2010 at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. The computerized database of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory and the Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology was used to identify ESBL-EC positive urine samples. ESBL-EC isolates were stratified according their origin into two groups: Urology and non-Urology isolates. RESULTS: The rate of ESBL-EC positive urine samples increased significantly during the study period (3 in 2001 compared to 55 in 2010, p < 0.05). The most active agents were imipenem, meropenem, and fosfomycin (100%), followed by amikacin (99.1%) and nitrofurantoin (84%). The least active substances were ampicillin-clavulanate (20%), sulfamethoxazole (28%), and ciprofloxacin (29.6%). ESBL-EC isolates from urological and non-urological patients showed similar susceptibility profiles. However, ESBL-EC isolates from urological patients were significantly less susceptible to ciprofloxacin compared to non-urological isolates (14.7 vs. 32.7%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of urinary ESBL-EC isolates is increasing. Their susceptibility to nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, and carbapenems is excellent, whereas ampicillin-clavulanate, sulfamethoxazole, and ciprofloxacin demonstrate only low susceptibility. In particular, the use of ciprofloxacin should be strictly avoided in urologic patients with suspicion for an ESBL-EC urinary tract infection as well as routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to urological interventions if not explicit indicated by current international guidelines or local resistance patterns.
PURPOSE: To describe the incidence and drug susceptibility profiles of uropathogenic extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) during a 10-year period and to identify differences in resistance patterns between urological and non-urological ESBL-EC isolates. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 191,564 urine samples obtained during 2001 to 2010 at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. The computerized database of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory and the Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology was used to identify ESBL-EC positive urine samples. ESBL-EC isolates were stratified according their origin into two groups: Urology and non-Urology isolates. RESULTS: The rate of ESBL-EC positive urine samples increased significantly during the study period (3 in 2001 compared to 55 in 2010, p < 0.05). The most active agents were imipenem, meropenem, and fosfomycin (100%), followed by amikacin (99.1%) and nitrofurantoin (84%). The least active substances were ampicillin-clavulanate (20%), sulfamethoxazole (28%), and ciprofloxacin (29.6%). ESBL-EC isolates from urological and non-urological patients showed similar susceptibility profiles. However, ESBL-EC isolates from urological patients were significantly less susceptible to ciprofloxacin compared to non-urological isolates (14.7 vs. 32.7%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of urinary ESBL-EC isolates is increasing. Their susceptibility to nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, and carbapenems is excellent, whereas ampicillin-clavulanate, sulfamethoxazole, and ciprofloxacin demonstrate only low susceptibility. In particular, the use of ciprofloxacin should be strictly avoided in urologic patients with suspicion for an ESBL-EC urinary tract infection as well as routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to urological interventions if not explicit indicated by current international guidelines or local resistance patterns.
Authors: George H Talbot; John Bradley; John E Edwards; David Gilbert; Michael Scheld; John G Bartlett Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-01-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kalpana Gupta; Thomas M Hooton; Kurt G Naber; Björn Wullt; Richard Colgan; Loren G Miller; Gregory J Moran; Lindsay E Nicolle; Raul Raz; Anthony J Schaeffer; David E Soper Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Javier Ena; Francisco Arjona; Carmen Martínez-Peinado; Maria Del Mar López-Perezagua; Concepción Amador Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: B A Cunha; C B Cunha; B Lam; J Giuga; J Chin; V F Zafonte; S Gerson Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Mete Cek; Zafer Tandoğdu; Florian Wagenlehner; Peter Tenke; Kurt Naber; Truls Erik Bjerklund-Johansen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Zafer Tandogdu; Mete Cek; Florian Wagenlehner; Kurt Naber; Peter Tenke; Edgar van Ostrum; Truls Bjerklund Johansen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 4.226