| Literature DB >> 27113570 |
Risto Vaikjärv1, Priit Kasenõmm2, Liis Jaanimäe3, Ave Kivisild3, Tiiu Rööp3, Epp Sepp3, Reet Mändar3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The first aim of this study was to compare the microbiota of different locations (pus, tonsillar fossa, blood) in peritonsillar abscess (PTA) patients in order to optimize the sampling scheme. The second aim was to estimate the occurrence of tonsillitis episodes and macroscopic oropharyngeal signs characteristic of recurrent tonsillitis in PTA patients.Entities:
Keywords: microbiota; peritonsillar abscess; recurrent tonsillitis; sampling
Year: 2016 PMID: 27113570 PMCID: PMC4845694 DOI: 10.3402/mehd.v27.27787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol Health Dis ISSN: 0891-060X
Clinical data
| Antimicrobial therapy before admission | 16 (72.7%) | |
| 6 female (27.3%) and 16 male (72.7%) | ||
|
| ||
| Gender | Median | Range |
| Age | 32 | 14–74 years |
| Fever | 38.4°C | 37.1°C–39.1°C |
| Organisms from tonsillar fossa | 6 | 1–10 |
| Organisms from pus | 3 | 0–9 |
| Average tonsillitis episodes per year | 0 | 0–10 |
| Length of previous history of tonsillitis | 0 | 0–5 years |
| Index of tonsillitis | 0 | 0–36 |
| Sclerotic signs | 4 | 0–5 |
Microorganisms isolated from the pus, tonsillar fossa, and blood of peritonsillar abscess patients
| Phylum | Family | Bacteria | Pus | Tonsillar fossa | Blood |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proteobacterium | Comamonadaceae |
| 1 | ||
| Moraxellaceae |
| 1 | |||
| Pasteurellaceae |
| 1 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 2 | ||||
| Neisseriaceae |
| 1 | 7 | ||
|
| 4 | ||||
|
| 2 | ||||
|
| 2 | 5 | |||
|
| 3 | ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
| 1 | ||
| Carnobacteriaceae |
| 1 | 1 | ||
| Clostridiaceae |
| 2 | 3 | ||
|
| 2 | 1 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Lactobacillaceae |
| 2 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Staphylococcaceae |
| 1 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 3 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Streptococcaceae |
| 2 | 2 | ||
|
| 5 | 1 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 2 | ||||
|
| 3 | 1 | |||
|
| 2 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 2 | ||||
|
| 5 | 1 | |||
|
| 4 | 12 | |||
|
| 1 | 4 | |||
|
| 4 | 12 | |||
|
| 6 | 4 | |||
|
| 1 | 6 | |||
|
| 1 | 2 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Veillonellaceae |
| 1 | |||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetaceae |
| 1 | ||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | 5 | |||
|
| 3 | ||||
| Corynebacteriaceae |
| 1 | 2 | ||
| Bifidobacteriaceae |
| 2 | |||
|
| 1 | 1 | |||
| Micrococcaceae |
| 2 | 1 | ||
|
| 7 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | ||||
| Bacteroidetes | Bacteroidaceae |
| 1 | ||
| Prevotellaceae |
| 1 | |||
|
| 1 | 2 | |||
| Fusobacteria | Fusobacteriaceae |
| 1 | 2 | |
|
| 3 |
Anaerobes.
Fig. 1Patient culture results and their locations.
Fig. 2Patients with positive pus samples and their microbiological results with locations.
Antibiotic susceptibility of opportunistic bacteria
| Pus | Biopsy | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| S (%) | I (%) | R (%) | S (%) | I (%) | R (%) | S (%) | I (%) | R (%) | |
|
| |||||||||
| P | 1 (25) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 7 (70) | 3 (30) | 0 (0) | 7 (50) | 5 (36) | 0 (0) |
| SAM | 1 (25) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 6 (60) | 2 (20) | 2 (20) | 7 (50) | 5 (36) | 2 (14) |
| CD | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 8 (80) | 0 (0) | 2 (20) | 12 (86) | 0 (0) | 2 (14) |
|
| |||||||||
| P | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (13) | 7 (88) | 0 (0) | 4 (36) | 7 (64) | 0 (0) |
| CXM | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (38) | 2 (25) | 3 (38) | 6 (55) | 2 (18) | 3 (27) |
| SAM | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 7 (88) | 1 (13) | 0 (0) | 10 (91) | 1 (9) | 0 (0) |
| CD | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 8 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 11 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| E | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (13) | 0 (0) | 7 (88) | 4 (36) | 0 (0) | 7 (64) |
| CIP | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (25) | 6 (75) | 0 (0) | 2 (18) | 9 (82) |
|
| |||||||||
| P | 6 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| CXM | 6 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) | 9 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) |
| SAM | 6 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) | 9 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) |
| CD | 6 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) | 9 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) |
| E | 5 (83) | 0 (0) | 1 (17) | 2 (50) | 1 (25) | 1 (25) | 7 (70) | 1 (10) | 2 (20) |
|
| |||||||||
| P | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| SAM | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| CD | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
| |||||||||
| P | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 1 (25) | 0 (0) | 3 (75) |
| SAM | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 1 (25) | 0 (0) | 3 (75) |
| CD | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| MTZ | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
S, susceptible; R, resistant; I, intermediate; P, penicillin; SAM, ampicillin/sulbactam; CXM, cefuroxime; CD, clindamycin; E, erythromycin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; MTZ, metronidazole.
We also determined the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for R. mucilaginosa: 0.016 and 0.125 for penicillin; 0.047, 0.094, 0.5, and 0.38 for cefuroxime; and 0.75, 2, and 6.2 for ciprofloxacin. These data were not included in the table since no MIC cut-off values exist for R. mucilaginosa susceptibility and resistance.