| Literature DB >> 32000698 |
Yili Chen1, Kang Liao1, Yongxin Huang2, Penghao Guo1, Han Huang1, Zhongwen Wu1, Min Liu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections have become a global health threat. Controlling CRE transmission in hospitals is increasingly dependent on the use of disinfectants to restrict the risk of infection. Here, the susceptibility of patient-derived carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) and Escherichia coli (CREC) strains against three common disinfectants and the determinants of resistance to disinfectants were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Carbapenem resistant; Disinfectant, susceptibility; Escherichia coli; Klebsiella pneumonia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32000698 PMCID: PMC6993419 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-020-4813-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Neutralizers used to neutralize the three chemical disinfectants respectively
| Disinfectants | Neutralizers |
|---|---|
| 0.1% chlorhexidine | 5.0% Tween 80 |
| TCCA | 1000 ml PBS + 5 g sodium thiosulfate + 0.5% Tween 80 |
| 0.1% PVP-I | 1000 ml PBS + 10 g sodium thiosulfate + 1.0% Tween 80 |
Primer sequences of the target genes
| Gene | Primer Sequence(5′ → 3′) | Size (bp) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| F: TAGCGAGGGCTTTACTAAGC | 300 | [ | |
| R: ATTCAGAATGCCGAACACCG | |||
| F: CTATGGCAATAGGAGATATGGTGT | 416 | [ | |
| R: CCACTACAGATTCTTCAGCTACATG | |||
| F: CAACTCCTTCGCCTATCCCG | 1051 | [ | |
| R: TCAGGTCAGACCAAACGGCG |
Antimicrobial susceptibility test results of the 50 strains of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
| Antibiotics | CRKP( | CREC( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible | Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible | |
| ETP | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| IMP | 94.4% | 2.78% | 2.78% | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| FEP | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| CAZ | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| TZP | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| AMK | 86.1% | 0 | 13.9% | 92.9% | 0 | 7.14% |
| FOX | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| SAM | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| LEV | 94.5% | 0 | 5.55% | 85.7% | 0 | 14.3% |
| CIP | 97.2% | 0 | 2.78% | 85.7% | 0 | 14.3% |
| CTX | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| CRO | 100% | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 0 |
ETP ertapenem, IMP imipenem, FEP cefepime, CAZ ceftazidime, TZP piperacillin-tazobactam, AMK amikacin, FOX cefoxitin, SAM ampicillin-sulbactam, LEV levofloxacin, CIP ciprofloxacin, CTX cefotaxime, CRO ceftriaxone
Fig. 1PFGE typing of 50 CRE strains. a Cluster analysis of 36 carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae (CRKP) strains; b Cluster analysis of 14 carbapenem-resistant E. coli (CREC) strains
Sensitivity of the clinically isolated strains to each of the disinfectants
| Disinfectants | Chlorhexidine | TCCA | PVP-I | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MIC90 (mg/L) | MBC | MIC | MIC90 (mg/L) | MBC | MIC | MIC90 (mg/L) | MBC | |
| Isolates | (mg/L) range | (mg/L) range | (mg/L) range | (mg/L) range | (mg/L) range | (mg/L) range | |||
| CRKP ( | 8~512 | 32 | 8~512 | 64~128 | 128 | 64~256 | 8~128 | 32 | 8~128 |
| CSKP ( | 8~256 | 16 | 8~256 | 64~128 | 128 | 64~128 | 4~64 | 16 | 4~64 |
| 16 | 16 | 128 | 128 | 16 | 16 | ||||
| CREC ( | 4~128 | 16 | 4~128 | 64~128 | 128 | 64~128 | 4~128 | 32 | 4~128 |
| CSEC ( | 2~128 | 8 | 2~128 | 64~128 | 128 | 64~128 | 4~64 | 32 | 4~64 |
| 2 | 2 | 128 | 128 | 32 | 32 | ||||
Detection of the disinfectant-resistance genes among CRE strains and non-CRE strains
| CRKP | 41.7% (15/36) | 0 | – | 80.6% (29/36) | ||
| CSKP | 36.0% (18/50) | 0 | 58.0% (29/50) | |||
| CREC | 57.1% (8/14) | 0 | 50.0%(7/14) | |||
| CSEC | 33.3% (10/30) | 3.33% (1/30) | 33.3% (10/30) | |||
Fig. 2Distribution of the minimum inhibitory concentrations of chlorhexidine among 36 CRKP strains. Isolates carrying the qacEΔ1 gene (blue bars) were significantly less susceptible to chlorhexidine than those without carrying qacEΔ1 gene (red bars) [p < 0.05]
Fig. 3Distribution of the minimum inhibitory concentrations of PVP-I among 36 CRKP strains. Isolates carrying the qacEΔ1 gene (blue bars) were significantly less susceptible to PVP-I than those without carrying qacEΔ1 gene (red bars) [p < 0.05]