Atul Khajuria1, Ashok Kumar Praharaj2, Mahadevan Kumar3, Naveen Grover3. 1. Demonstrator, Department of Microbiology, AIIMS , Bhubaneshwar, Odisha, India . 2. Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, AIIMS , Bhubaneshwar, Odisha, India . 3. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Armed Forces Medical College , Pune, India .
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To detect genes encoding carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii in an intensive care unit. METHODS: A. baumannii isolates were recovered from various clinical specimens of hospitalized patients admitted to the Medical and Surgical intensive care units of a tertiary care centre in Pune. Bacterial identification was performed by routine conventional microbial culture and biochemical tests using standard recommended techniques. Antibiotic sensitivity test was performed by standard Kirby Bauer disc diffusion technique. PCR amplification and automated sequencing was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 155 /368 (42.11%) isolates A. baumannii were found to have reduced susceptibility to imipenem (diameter of zones of inhibition ≤13mm) by disc diffusion method. Among these 155 isolates tested 130 (83.87%) isolates showed MIC values for imipenem and meropenem ranging from16-64 mg/L as per CLSI breakpoints. Among these 155 isolates, Carbapenemase production was confirmed by Modified Hodge test for 93 (60%) isolates. Out of 155 isolates, DDST was positive for 89 (57.41%), CDST was positive for 73(47.09%) and MBL (IP/IPI) E-test was positive for 105 (67.74%). blaOXA-51 gene was detected in 47/105 (44.76%), blaOXA-23 gene in 55/105 (52.38%) and blaOXA-58 like gene in 15/105 (14.28%). CONCLUSION: MBL production along with co- production of OXA enzymes are considered to be the important reason for resistance to imipenem in Acinetobacter in our health care settings. Hence, early detection of these drug resistant genes by molecular methods is essential in limiting the spread of infection due to these organisms.
OBJECTIVE: To detect genes encoding carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii in an intensive care unit. METHODS:A. baumannii isolates were recovered from various clinical specimens of hospitalized patients admitted to the Medical and Surgical intensive care units of a tertiary care centre in Pune. Bacterial identification was performed by routine conventional microbial culture and biochemical tests using standard recommended techniques. Antibiotic sensitivity test was performed by standard Kirby Bauer disc diffusion technique. PCR amplification and automated sequencing was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 155 /368 (42.11%) isolates A. baumannii were found to have reduced susceptibility to imipenem (diameter of zones of inhibition ≤13mm) by disc diffusion method. Among these 155 isolates tested 130 (83.87%) isolates showed MIC values for imipenem and meropenem ranging from16-64 mg/L as per CLSI breakpoints. Among these 155 isolates, Carbapenemase production was confirmed by Modified Hodge test for 93 (60%) isolates. Out of 155 isolates, DDST was positive for 89 (57.41%), CDST was positive for 73(47.09%) and MBL (IP/IPI) E-test was positive for 105 (67.74%). blaOXA-51 gene was detected in 47/105 (44.76%), blaOXA-23 gene in 55/105 (52.38%) and blaOXA-58 like gene in 15/105 (14.28%). CONCLUSION: MBL production along with co- production of OXA enzymes are considered to be the important reason for resistance to imipenem in Acinetobacter in our health care settings. Hence, early detection of these drug resistant genes by molecular methods is essential in limiting the spread of infection due to these organisms.
Entities:
Keywords:
A. baumannii; Carbapenem; Metallo beta-lactamase; Multidrug resistant
Authors: M L Mezzatesta; M M D'Andrea; R Migliavacca; T Giani; F Gona; E Nucleo; G Fugazza; L Pagani; G M Rossolini; S Stefani Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Neil Woodford; Matthew J Ellington; Juliana M Coelho; Jane F Turton; M Elaina Ward; Susan Brown; Sebastian G B Amyes; David M Livermore Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Kristine M Hujer; Andrea M Hujer; Edward A Hulten; Saralee Bajaksouzian; Jennifer M Adams; Curtis J Donskey; David J Ecker; Christian Massire; Mark W Eshoo; Rangarajan Sampath; Jodi M Thomson; Philip N Rather; David W Craft; Joel T Fishbain; Allesa J Ewell; Michael R Jacobs; David L Paterson; Robert A Bonomo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Felipe Fernández-Cuenca; Luis Martínez-Martínez; Maria Carmen Conejo; Juan A Ayala; Evelio J Perea; Alvaro Pascual Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Karyne Rangel Carvalho; Ana Paula D'Alincourt Carvalho-Assef; Gisele Peirano; Lia Cristina Galvão Dos Santos; Maria José Felix Pereira; Marise Dutra Asensi Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Ingvild Odsbu; Smita Khedkar; Uday Khedkar; Sandeep S Nerkar; Ashok J Tamhankar; Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nachiket P Marathe; Fanny Berglund; Mohammad Razavi; Chandan Pal; Johannes Dröge; Sharvari Samant; Erik Kristiansson; D G Joakim Larsson Journal: Microbiome Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 14.650