| Literature DB >> 32509624 |
Shambhavi Singh1, Anuradha Sharma1, Vijay Lakshmi Nag1.
Abstract
Respiratory tract infections are the most common diseases that are associated with social burden for the patient. Western Rajasthan has cases of Cystic fibrosis due to migrant population. The dry and dusty environment has led to prevalence of silicosis and COPD. As per IDSA (2018) guidelines, patients attending Out-Patient Department do not need microbiological investigations for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) except for influenza and tuberculosis. AIMS: This study was conducted to identify the bacterial aetiology of LRTI among patients who attended AIIMS, Jodhpur, and to ascertain the current scenario of bacterial susceptibility in respiratory tract infections in order to optimize empiric therapy in Hospitals ad community. METHODS AND MATERIAL: In total, 1,775 lower respiratory tract samples were received in Bacteriology Section of Microbiology Department (January 2017 to December 2018). Bartlett's criteria were stringently used to assess quality of specimen. Semiquantitative cultures were done for tracheal aspirate and bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Following culture, the isolated organisms were identified and antimicrobial sensitivity was performed according to CLSI.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and nonfermenters; cystic fibrosis; lower respiratory tract infections
Year: 2020 PMID: 32509624 PMCID: PMC7266181 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_994_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care ISSN: 2249-4863
Distribution of organisms presenting to OPD, IPD, and ICU
| Organism name | OPD | IPD | ICU | Number, |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79 | 103 | 44 | 226 (25.6) | |
| 22 | 18 | 9 | 49 (5.6) | |
| 21 | 60 | 73 | 154 (17.5) | |
| 0 | 7 | 3 | 10 (1.1) | |
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 (0.5) | |
| 41 | 88 | 59 | 188 (21.3) | |
| 31 | 81 | 24 | 136 (15.4) | |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 (0.6) | |
| 2 | 8 | 4 | 14 (1.6) | |
| 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 (0.5) | |
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 (0.2) | |
| 13 | 23 | 8 | 44 (5) | |
| 14 | 1 | 0 | 15 (1.7) | |
| Group A β-Hemolytic - | 22 | 6 | 0 | 28 (3.2) |
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 (0.2) |
Demographic and clinical details of the patient (n=769)
| Number (%) | |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| <20 | 136 (17.7) |
| 21-40 | 133 (17.3) |
| 41-60 | 231 (30) |
| >61 | 269 (35) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 561 (73) |
| Female | 208 (27) |
| Location of patients | |
| OPD | 154 (20) |
| Wards | 397 (51.7) |
| ICU | 218 (28.3) |
| Sample | |
| Sputum | 456 (59.3) |
| Bronchoalveolar lavage | 205 (26.6) |
| Endotracheal aspirate | 105 (13.7) |
| Gastric aspirate | 1 (0.1) |
| ET tube | 2 (0.3) |
Antibiotic resistant (%) Gram-negative organism
| No. | Pn | AMC | PIT | CTX | CTR | CAZ | CAT | CPM | AT | MRP | IPM | ETP | CIP | LE | GEN | AK | COT | TGC | NET | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 226 | IR | IR | 29 (12.8) | IR | IR | 22 (9.7) | 24 (10.6) | 14 (6.2) | 26 (11.5) | 18 (8) | 71 (31.4) | IR | 20 (8.8) | 23 (10.1) | 36 (15.9) | 34 (15.0) | IR | IR | 16 (7.1) | |
| 49 | IR | - | 2 (4.1) | 4 (8.1) | - | 4 (8.1) | 1 (2) | 4 (8.1) | 5 (10.2) | 2 (4.1) | 6 (12.2) | - | 5 (10.2) | 4 (8.1) | 7 (14.3) | 4 (8.1) | 3 (6.1) | - | 3 (6.1) | |
| 154 | IR | IR | 103 (66.9) | 4 (2.6) | 73 (47.4) | 59 (38.3) | 52 (33.7) | 100 (64.9) | IR | 51 (33.1) | 103 (66.9) | IR | 38 (24.6) | 63 (40.9) | 105 (68.2) | 88 (57.1) | 14 (9.1) | 6 (3.9) | - | |
| 10 | IR | IR | IR | IR | IR | 7 (70) | - | IR | IR | 1 (10) | IR | IR | 1 (10) | 8 (80) | IR | IR | 4 (40) | - | 6 (60) | |
| 4 | IR | IR | IR | IR | IR | 1 (25) | 2 (50) | - | IR | IR | IR | IR | - | 1 (25) | IR | IR | 2 (50) | - | - | |
| 188 | IR | 15 (8) | 96 (51) | 9 (4.8) | 120 (63.9) | 29 (15.4) | 56 (29.8) | 122 (64.9) | 69 (36.7) | 40 (21.3) | 94 (50) | 39 (20.7) | 38 (20.2) | 76 (40.4) | 96 (51) | 83 (44.1) | 81 (43) | 9 (4.8) | 1 (0.5) | |
| 136 | 5 (3.7) | 21 (15.4) | 35 (18.6) | 13 (9.5) | 99 (72.8) | 21 (15.4) | 25 (18.4) | 102 (75) | 37 (19.7) | 14 (10.3) | 42 (30.9) | 18 (13.2) | 46 (33.8) | 54 (39.7) | 50 (36.8) | 19 (13.8) | 43 (31.6) | 1 (0.5) | - | |
| 5 | IR | IR | - | - | 2 (40) | - | - | 2 (40) | - | - | - | - | 1 (20) | - | 1 (20) | - | 1 (20) | - | - | |
| 14 | IR | IR | - | - | 7 (50) | 5 (35.7) | 2 (14.3) | 6 (42.8) | 4 (28.6) | 4 (28.6) | 5 (35.7) | 3 (21.4) | 2 (14.3) | 4 (28.6) | 4 (28.6) | 3 (21.4) | 2 (14.3) | 1 (7.1) | - |
Pn=Penicillin, PI=Piperacillin, AMC=Amoxycillin-clavulanic acid, PIT=Piperacillin tazobactam, CTX=Cefotaxime, CTR=Ceftriaxone, CAZ=Ceftazidime, CAT=Ceftazidime tazobactam, CPM=Cefepime, AT=Aztreonam, MRP=Meropenem, IPM=Imipenem, ETP=Ertapenem, CIP=Ciprofloxacin, LE=Levofloxacin, GEN=Gentamicin, AK=Amikacin, COT=Cotrimoxazole, TGC=Tigecycline, NET=Netlimicin, IR=Intrinsically resistant as per CLSI guidelines
Antibiotic resistant (%) gram positive organism
| Organism | No. | Pn | AMP | OX | CX | COT | TOB | GEN | AK | CIP | LE | E | CD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44 | 40 (91) | - | - | 25 (56.9) | 10 (22.7) | 1 (2.2) | 5 (11.4) | 2 (4.5) | 18 (41) | 9 (20.5) | 31 (70.4) | 24 (54.5) | |
| Group A β-Hemolytic- | 28 | 1 (3.6) | 1 (3.6) | - | - | 1 (3.6) | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (3.6) | - |
| 15 | - | 2 (13.3) | 6 (40) | - | 5 (33.3) | - | - | - | - | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | - |
Pn=Penicillin, AMP=Ampicillin, OX=Oxacillin, CX=Cefoxitin, COT=Cotrimoxazole, TOB=Tobramycin, GEN=Gentamicin, AK=Amikacin, CIP=Ciprofloxacin, LE=Levofloxacin, E=Erythromycin, CD=Clindamycin
Comparison with other similar studies
| Year | Gram-positive cocci | Gram-negative bacilli | Nonfermenter Gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB) | Enterobacteriaciae | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This study (Jodhpur) | 2018 | 89 (10.1%) | 792 (89.9%) | 443 (50.3%) | 349 (39.6%) | 881 |
| Regha | 2018 | 44 (15.3%) | 244 (84.7%) | 136 (55.7%) | 108 (37.5%) | 288 |
| Anup saha | 2018 | 5.10% | 92.86% | 28% | 67% | 100 |
| Ravichitra | 2016 | - | 65.5% | 35 (10.1%) | 191 (55.4%) | 345 (58.9%) |
| Sarmah | 2016 | 13 | 407 | 80 | 327 | 597 (49.4%) |
| Vishwanath | 2013 | - | - | 830 (16.4%) | - | 5056 (54%) |
| Ullah | 2015 | 57 (89.06%) | 7 (10.92%) | 2 (3.12%) | 5 (7.80%) | 64 |
| Kulkarni | 2014 | 29% | 71% | 26.7% | 20% | 45 |
Figure 1Pseudomonas aeruginosa antimicrobial susceptibility pattern
Figure 4Staphylococcus aureus antimicrobial susceptibility testing