| Literature DB >> 29788988 |
Tigist Engda1, Feleke Moges2, Aschalew Gelaw2, Setegn Eshete2, Feleke Mekonnen2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the magnitude, distribution, and the antimicrobial susceptibility of the extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Entrobacteriaceae in the University of Gondar Referral Hospital environments.Entities:
Keywords: ESBL; Entrobacteriaceae; Hospital environments
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29788988 PMCID: PMC5964971 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3443-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
The distribution of ESBL producing Entrobacteriaceae in different sites of the hospital environment at the University of Gondar Referral Hospital, northwest Ethiopia, January–June 2014
| Bacterial isolates | Sites of environmental samples | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical ward | Surgical ward | Gyn-obs ward | Fistula clinic | Eye clinic | Sewage | Café chairs | |
|
| 12 (6.3) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (46.7) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 14 (7.4) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.0) | 7 (46.7) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 1 (0.5) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 2 (1.0) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.4) | 1 (4.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (8.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 1 (0.5) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Total | 30 (52.6) | 6 (10.5) | 3 (5.3) | 1 (1.8) | 3 (5.3) | 14 (24.6) | 0 (0.0) |
Profile of ESBL producing Entrobacteriaceae in different hospital environmental samples at the University of Gondar Referral Hospital, January–June 2014
| ESBL producing | Types of samples | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bed side table | Bed frame | Floor | Wall | Door handler | Waiting chair | Sink | Waste water | Café chair | |
|
| 3 (4.3) | 3 (4.3) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (2.9) | 1 (3.2) | 3 (13.6) | 7 (46.7) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 8 (11.4) | 2 (2.9) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.2) | 4 (18.1) | 7 (46.7) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (9.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.5) | 0 (.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Sum = 57 | 13 (22.8) | 9 (13.0) | 3 (4.3) | 2 (2.9) | 1 (2.9) | 2 (3.5) | 13 (59.0) | 14 (24.6) | 0 (0.0) |
ESBL producing Entrobacteriaceae were isolated mainly from the medical ward (52.63%), sewage (24.56%) and surgical ward (10.53%). No Entrobacteriaceae were isolated from hospital café chairs (Table 2)
Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of ESBL producing Entrobacteriaceae isolated from the hospital environment at the University of Gondar Referral Hospital, northwest Ethiopia, and January–June 2014
| Organism | Pattern | Antimicrobial agent’s N (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFP (N, %) | CPD (N, %) | CAZ (N, %) | CTR (N, %) | CIP (N, %) | NX (N, %) | GEN (N, %) | C (N, %) | AMC (N, %) | SXT (N, %) | ||
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 14 (70.0) | 15 (75.0) | 16 (80.0) | 9 (45.0) | 0 (0.0) | 13 (65.0) |
| R | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | 6 (30.0) | 5 (25.0) | 4 (20.0) | 11 (55.0) | 20 (100) | 7 (35.0) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 13 (54.2) | 13 (54.2) | 18 (75.0) | 8 (33.3) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (8.3) |
| R | 24 (100) | 24 (100) | 24 (100) | 24 (100) | 11 (45.8) | 11 (45.8) | 6 (25.0) | 16 (66.7) | 24 (100) | 22 (91.7) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 2 (100.0) | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| R | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (75.0) | 3 (75.0) | 4 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (50.0) |
| R | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | 1 (25.0) | 1 (25.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | 2 (50.0) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| R | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| R | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| R | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | |
|
| S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| R | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (50.0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | |
| Total (57) | S | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 32 (56.1) | 33 (57.9) | 46 (80.7) | 18 (31.6) | 0 (0.0) | 17 (29.8) |
| R | 57 (100) | 57 (100) | 57 (100) | 57 (100) | 25 (43.9) | 24 (42.1) | 11 (19.3) | 39 (68.4) | 57 (100) | 40 (70.2) | |
CFP cefpirome, CPD cefpodoxime, CAZ ceftazidime, CTR ceftriaxone, CIP ciprofloxacin, NX norfloxacin, GEN gentamycin, C chloramphenicol, SXT sulfamethoxazole + trimethoprim (cotrimoxazole), AMC amoxicillin with clavulanic acid, S sensitive, R resistance