| Literature DB >> 32099417 |
Leilei Wang1,2, Xuefei Zhang1,2, Dan Li1,2, Fupin Hu1,2, Minggui Wang1,2, Qinglan Guo1,2, Fan Yang1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate molecular characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of clinical isolates of Elizabethkingia in Shanghai, China.Entities:
Keywords: Elizabethkingia; antimicrobial susceptibility; molecular typing; multidrug resistance; resistant mechanism
Year: 2020 PMID: 32099417 PMCID: PMC6996224 DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S240963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Drug Resist ISSN: 1178-6973 Impact factor: 4.003
Characteristics of 52 Patients with Elizabethkingia Colonization or Infection
| Age (years) | |
| Range | 18–96 |
| Mean±SD | 64±21 |
| Gender, n (%) | |
| Male | 36 (69.2) |
| Female | 16 (30.8) |
| Hospitalization duration (days), mean±SD | 39±40 |
| Comorbidity, n (%) | |
| Hypertension | 18 (34.6) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 7 (13.5) |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 6 (11.5) |
| Cardiovascular disease | 5 (9.6) |
| End-stage renal disease | 4 (7.7) |
| Mechanical ventilation, n (%) | 29 (55.8) |
| Indwelling device, n (%) | 38 (73.1) |
| Central venous catheter | 28 (53.8) |
| Nasogastric tube | 22 (42.3) |
| Urinary catheter | 20 (38.5) |
| Surgical puncture or drain | 20 (38.5) |
| Surgery, n (%) | 20 (38.5) |
| Transplantation | 5 (9.6) |
| Chemoradiotherapy, n (%) | 3 (5.8) |
| Ward, n (%) | |
| Geriatrics | 14 (26.9) |
| Neurosurgery | 9 (17.3) |
| Surgery | 7 (13.5) |
| Intensive care unit | 7 (13.5) |
| Neurology | 5 (9.6) |
| Infectious disease | 4 (7.7) |
| General practice | 2 (3.8) |
| Hematology | 2 (3.8) |
| Thoracic surgery | 1 (1.9) |
| Outpatient | 1 (1.9) |
| Site of isolation, n (%) | |
| Respiratory tract | 45 (86.5) |
| Blood | 2 (3.8) |
| Urine | 2 (3.8) |
| Bile | 1 (1.9) |
| Exudate | 1 (1.9) |
| Indwelling needle | 1 (1.9) |
Figure 1The distribution of 52 Elizabethkingia isolates according to the year and site of isolation.
Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of 52 Elizabethkingia Isolates Determined by the Broth Microdilution Method
| Antimicrobial Agents | Breakpoint (mg/L) | MIC (mg/L) | Number (%) of Isolates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | I | R | Range | 50% | 90% | S | I | R | |
| Piperacillin | ≤16 | 32–64 | ≥128 | 8 to >128 | 32 | 64 | 24 (46.2) | 23 (44.2) | 5 (9.6) |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam | ≤16/4 | 32/4–64/4 | ≥128/4 | 0.25/4 to >128/4 | 4/4 | 32/4 | 45 (86.5) | 7 (13.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Cefoperazone | ≤16 | 32 | ≥64 | 16 to >128 | 32 | >128 | 3 (5.8) | 25 (48.1) | 24 (46.2) |
| Cefoperazone-sulbactam | ≤16/8 | 32/16 | ≥64/32 | 2/1–128/64 | 8/4 | 64/32 | 46 (88.5) | 1 (1.9) | 5 (9.6) |
| Ceftazidime | ≤8 | 16 | ≥32 | 64 to >128 | >128 | >128 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 52 (100.0) |
| Cefepime | ≤8 | 16 | ≥32 | 16 to >128 | 32 | >128 | 0 (0.0) | 8 (15.4) | 44 (84.6) |
| Aztreonam | ≤8 | 16 | ≥32 | >128 | >128 | >128 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 52(100.0) |
| Imipenem | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 8 to >128 | 16 | 128 | 0 (0.0) | 6 (11.5) | 46 (88.5) |
| Meropenem | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 8 to >128 | 32 | >128 | 0 (0.0) | 4 (7.7) | 48 (92.3) |
| Colistin | ≤2 | – | ≥4 | >128 | >128 | >128 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 52 (100.0) |
| Amikacin | ≤16 | 32 | ≥64 | 16 to >128 | 64 | >128 | 4 (7.7) | 3 (5.8) | 45 (86.5) |
| Gentamicin | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 4 to >128 | 64 | >128 | 1 (1.9) | 1 (1.9) | 50 (96.2) |
| Ciprofloxacin | ≤1 | 2 | ≥4 | 0.25 to >128 | 1 | 128 | 26 (50.0) | 6 (11.5) | 20 (38.5) |
| Levofloxacin | ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 0.25–64 | 1 | 32 | 37 (71.2) | 1 (1.9) | 14 (26.9) |
| Rifampin | ≤1 | 2 | ≥4 | 0.5–64 | 1 | 8 | 40 (76.9) | 6 (11.5) | 6 (11.5) |
| Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | ≤2/38 | - | ≥4/76 | 1/19–16/304 | 4/76 | 8/152 | 19 (36.5) | 0 (0.0) | 33 (63.5) |
| Tigecycline | ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 1–32 | 4 | 8 | 41 (78.8) | 8 (15.4) | 3 (5.8) |
| Doxycycline | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 1–8 | 2 | 4 | 50 (96.2) | 2 (3.8) | 0 (0.00) |
| Minocycline | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 0.25–4 | 0.5 | 1 | 52 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Vancomycin | ≤4 | 8–16 | ≥32 | 8–32 | 16 | 16 | 0 (0.0) | 12 (23.1) | 40 (76.9) |
| Linezolid | ≤4 | - | ≥8 | 4–128 | 16 | 32 | 2 (3.8) | 0 (0.0) | 50 (96.2) |
Notes: In the combinations, the concentration of tazobactam was 4 mg/L constant. The ratio of cefoperazone to sulbactam was 2:1, and the ratio of trimethoprim to sulfamethoxazole was 1:19.
Abbreviations: MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant.
Distribution of β-Lactamase Genes in 52 Elizabethkingia
| β-Lactamase Gene | No. of Isolates | EDTA Combination Disk Test |
|---|---|---|
| Negative | 1 | + |
| 1 | + | |
| 14 | + | |
| 8 | + | |
| 1 | + | |
| 1 | + | |
| 26 | + |
Figure 2Dendrogram of PFGE patterns of 52 Elizabethkingia isolates using the BioNumerics software. (A) Thirty-four E. anophelis isolates; (B) Fourteen E. meningoseptica isolates; (C) Three E. miricola isolates.
Abbreviations: M, male; F, female; PIP, piperacillin; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; CFP, cefoperazone; CSL, cefoperazone-sulbactam; AMK, amikacin; LVX, levofloxacin; RIF, rifampin; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TGC, tigecycline; S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant.