| Literature DB >> 33364798 |
Ebrahim M Abda1, Zenebe Adugna2, Adugna Assefa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frequent identification of resistant bacteria in hospitals constantly presents antimicrobial therapy with a challenge. Imipenem, once considered an extremely powerful antibiotic against multidrug-resistant bacterial infections, is losing its effectiveness. Its use in empirical therapy with inadequate or nonexistent antimicrobial stewardship programs has further triggered bacterial resistance in low-income countries. Therefore, this study aimed at identifying imipenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria from patients who were referred to health centers in North Gondar, Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA sequencing; Gram-negative bacteria; North Gondar; imipenem
Year: 2020 PMID: 33364798 PMCID: PMC7751593 DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S287700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Drug Resist ISSN: 1178-6973 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Percentage of culture positive and negative samples on MacConkey agar plates after 24 hours of growth.
Gram-Negative Bacteria Demonstrating Imipenem Resistance Isolated from the Two Health Centers in North Gondar, Ethiopia
| Health Center | Number of Samples Analyzed | Percentage of Imipenem Resistant Bacteria |
|---|---|---|
| University of Gondar referral hospital | 113 | 19.46 |
| Maksegnit health center | 40 | 22.5 |
| Total | 153 |
Figure 2Diversity of Gram-negative imipenem-resistant bacteria identified by biochemical studies and 16S rRNA sequencing.
Figure 3Comparison of the motility types of S. maltophilia isolates. The three different motility patterns was assayed using tryptone broth with 0.3% (w/v) agarose (swimming), nutrient broth with 0.5% (w/v) agar and 5 g/l glucose (swarming), and LB broth with 1% (w/v) granulated agar (twitching).
Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern of Imipenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Recovered from Sputum Samples
| Species | Total Number | Antibiotics Tested | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN R (%) | SXT R (%) | AMP R (%) | C R (%) | AMC R(%) | NOR R(%) | TE R (%) | ||
| 16 | 25 | 100 | 100 | ND | 100 | ND | 81.25 | |
| 15 | 13.33 | 93.33 | 100 | 26.67 | 86.67 | 26.67 | 100 | |
| 13 | 23.07 | 69.23 | 100 | ND | ND | 30.76 | ND | |
| 11 | 18.18 | 18.18 | 100 | 27.27 | 100 | ND | 100 | |
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | 30 | 100 | ND | ND | |
| 3 | 0 | ND | 100 | 33.33 | 100 | ND | 33.33 | |
| 3 | 33.33 | 66.67 | 100 | 33.33 | 66.67 | 66.67 | 33.33 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ND | 33.33 | 33.33 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 50 | 50 | ND | ND | |
| 2 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 0 | 100 | ND | ND | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 100 | ND | 100 | ND | ND | |
Abbreviations: CN, gentamycin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; AMP, ampicillin; C, chloramphenicol; AMC, amoxycillin/clavulanic acid; NOR, norfloxacin; TE, tetracycline; ND, not done.
Multidrug-Resistance Profiles of Imipenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Recovered from Sputum Samples
| Species | Total Number | Degree of Resistance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 (%) | R3 (%) | R4 (%) | R5 (%) | R6 (%) | ||
| 16 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 25 | ||
| 15 | 100 | 100 | 93.75 | 40 | ||
| 13 | 100 | 92.30 | 30.76 | 15.38 | – | |
| 11 | 100 | 100 | 45.45 | 18.18 | ||
| 10 | 100 | 40 | 10 | – | ||
| 3 | 100 | 33.33 | 33.33 | – | ||
| 3 | 100 | 100 | 66.67 | 33.33 | ||
| 3 | 66.67 | 33.33 | – | – | – | |
| 2 | 100 | – | – | – | ||
| 2 | 100 | 100 | – | – | ||
Note: ≥ R3: resistance to 3 or more antibiotic = MDR.
Abbreviations: R, resistance; MDR, multidrug resistance.