Padmaja Ananth Shenoy1, Shashidhar Vishwanath1, Ashwini Gawda2, Seema Shetty3, Renuka Anegundi4, Muralidhar Varma5, Chiranjay Mukhopadhyay6, Kiran Chawla7. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 2. Postgraduate Student, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 3. Senior Lecturer, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 5. Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 6. Professor, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 7. Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anaerobic bacteria which constitute a significant proportion of the normal microbiota also cause variety of infections involving various anatomic sites. Considering the tedious culture techniques with longer turnaround time, anaerobic cultures are usually neglected by clinicians and microbiologists. AIM: To study the frequency of isolation of different anaerobic bacteria from various clinical specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study to analyse the frequency of isolation of different anaerobic bacteria, was conducted over a period of five years from 2011 to 2015 including various clinical specimens submitted to anaerobic division of Microbiology laboratory. Anaerobic bacteria were isolated and identified following standard bacteriological techniques. RESULTS: Pathogenic anaerobes (n=336) were isolated from 278 (12.48%) of overall 2227 specimens processed with an average yield of 1.2 isolates. Anaerobes were isolated as polymicrobial flora with or without aerobic bacterial pathogens in 159 (57.2%) patients. Anaerobic Gram-negative bacilli (140, 41.7%) were the predominant isolates. B. fragilis group (67, 19.9%) were the most commonly isolated anaerobic pathogens. Anaerobes were predominantly isolated from deep seated abscess (23.9%). CONCLUSION: Pathogenic anaerobes were isolated from various infection sites. Unless culture and susceptibility tests are performed as a routine, true magnitude of antimicrobial resistance among anaerobic pathogens will not be known. Knowledge of the distribution of these organisms may assist in the selection of appropriate empirical therapy for anaerobic infections.
INTRODUCTION: Anaerobic bacteria which constitute a significant proportion of the normal microbiota also cause variety of infections involving various anatomic sites. Considering the tedious culture techniques with longer turnaround time, anaerobic cultures are usually neglected by clinicians and microbiologists. AIM: To study the frequency of isolation of different anaerobic bacteria from various clinical specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study to analyse the frequency of isolation of different anaerobic bacteria, was conducted over a period of five years from 2011 to 2015 including various clinical specimens submitted to anaerobic division of Microbiology laboratory. Anaerobic bacteria were isolated and identified following standard bacteriological techniques. RESULTS: Pathogenic anaerobes (n=336) were isolated from 278 (12.48%) of overall 2227 specimens processed with an average yield of 1.2 isolates. Anaerobes were isolated as polymicrobial flora with or without aerobic bacterial pathogens in 159 (57.2%) patients. Anaerobic Gram-negative bacilli (140, 41.7%) were the predominant isolates. B. fragilis group (67, 19.9%) were the most commonly isolated anaerobic pathogens. Anaerobes were predominantly isolated from deep seated abscess (23.9%). CONCLUSION: Pathogenic anaerobes were isolated from various infection sites. Unless culture and susceptibility tests are performed as a routine, true magnitude of antimicrobial resistance among anaerobic pathogens will not be known. Knowledge of the distribution of these organisms may assist in the selection of appropriate empirical therapy for anaerobic infections.
Authors: A Vena; P Muñoz; L Alcalá; A Fernandez-Cruz; C Sanchez; M Valerio; E Bouza Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Rohit Singh; R Shilpa; Chiranjay Mukhopadhyay; Padmaja A Shenoy; R Balakrishnan; K Devaraja Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-01-01
Authors: Mohammad A Tariq; Fiona Newberry; Rik Haagmans; Catherine Booth; Tom Wileman; Lesley Hoyles; Martha R J Clokie; James Ebdon; Simon R Carding Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 5.640