| Literature DB >> 34516520 |
Yuxin Yang1,2, Jia Liu3, Murad Muhammad4, Hanting Liu5, Zongsu Min1, Jing Lu6, Lei Zhang5,7,8,9, Zhonglin Chai2.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae made the treatment difficult, which has become a significant issue of public health. A sharp increase of carbapenem-resistance rate in Klebsiella pneumoniae was observed in a maternity and child health care hospital in Zunyi, China, in 2014.In 2015 to 2016, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) isolated from all the clinical samples were analyzed to identify the carbapenem-resistance genes. They were then fingerprinted in order to determine their genetic relationship. Clinical data such as usage of imipenem in 2012 to 2016 and the nosocomial infection surveillance data were analyzed.Thirty-five isolates of CRKp out of 4328 various pathogens were obtained, and blaNDM-1 was identified to be the most common resistant gene present in the CRKp isolates. The fingerprint analysis identified 15 major clusters of CRKp isolates. The bacteria with close proximity relationship tended to be from the same wards. However, a few CRKp isolates from different wards were found to be genetically highly related. The clinical data showed a significantly higher usage of carbapenems in 2012 to 2013 before the CRKp rate sharply increased in 2014. The nosocomial infection surveillance showed an unexpectedly high rate of failures to meet the requirement of the hospital environment hygiene and hand hygiene in the neonatal ward.The increasing isolation rate of CRKp was associated with poorly regulated usage of carbapenems, impropriate medical practices, and the poor hospital environmental hygiene and hand hygiene.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34516520 PMCID: PMC8428699 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Primer sequences for carbapenemases genes.
| Carbapenemases genes | Primer sequence |
|
| F: 5’-TTAACACTGCAATCCCAGGAGA-3’R: 5’-CTACAACCCAATCAGCAGGAAC-3’ |
|
| F: 5’-GCTTGATGAAGGCGTTTATGTT-3’R: 5’-CTGTCGCTATGAAAATGAGAGGA-3’ |
|
| F: 5’-AGCAAAGGAATGGCAAGAAAAC-3’R: 5’-TAAAGGTAGATGCGGGTAAAAAT-3’ |
|
| F: 5’-TTGATTGGCTAAAGGGAAAACACGAC-3’ R: 5’-GCCAGACGACGGCATAGTCATTT-3’ |
|
| F: 5’-GCAGTCGCTTCCAACGGTTT-3’R: 5’-CAAGCTGGTTCGACAACGCA-3’ |
|
| F: 5’-GTCGCATATCGCAACGCAGT-3’R: 5’-CGACGCGGTCGTCATGAAAG-3’ |
Detection of carbapenemase genes in carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from specified wards∗.
| Carbapenemase gene | ||||||||
| ID# | Inpatient ward | Source of bacterial isolates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 73 | Pediatric ward-3 | Sputum | – | + | – | – | + | – |
| 11 | Pediatric ward-2 | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 70 | Pediatric ward-2 | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 71 | Pediatric ward-2 | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 35 | PICU | Blood | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 36 | PICU | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 65 | PICU | Sputum | – | + | – | + | – | – |
| 75 | PICU | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 76 | PICU | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 77 | PICU | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 9 | Neonatal ward | Tracheal intubation | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 10 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 12 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 13 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 19 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 20 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | + | + | – | – | – | – |
| 21 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | + | + | – | – | – | – |
| 22 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 23 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 24 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 34 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 38 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 45 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 46 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | – | – | – | – | + |
| 49 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 50 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | + | + | – | – | – | – |
| 51 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 53 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 54 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 59 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 60 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 61 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 62 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 63 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 72 | Neonatal ward | Sputum | – | + | – | – | + | – |
Figure 1Dendrogram of 35 imipenem-resistant Klebaiella pneumoniae. Dendrogram using average (between-group) linkage shows the genetic relationship among the isolates based on the ERIC-PCR results. The number 0 to 25 at the top horizontal scale is the relative distance between the strains. The numbers of vertical axis at the left of figure are sample numbers and the capital letters A–O indicate the clusters of isolates which have a high genetic similarity (<5 relative distance). The lower case letters a–c indicate the sub-clusters of the isolates within a cluster, which have the lowest relative distance. ERIC = enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus, PCR = polymerase chain reaction, PICU = pediatric intensive care unit.
Figure 2The percentage of imipenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae pathogens. Rates (%) of imipenem resistant isolates of 4 commonly known bacterial pathogens (Escherichia coli, Klebaiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, and Klebsiella oxytoca) are shown.
Imipenem resistant rate and imipenem usage (n/%).
| Imipenem treated patients† | ||||
| Year | Discharged patients (n) | Imipenem treated patients∗ | Pathogen negative/ND | Pathogen positive |
| 2012 | 11634 | 111 (0.76%) | 87 (78%) | 24 (22%)ESBLs+: 8 (27%)‡ |
| 2013 | 14311 | 137 (0.97%) | 85 (62%) | 52 (38%)ESBLs+: 14 (27%) |
| 2014 | 15287 | 92 (0.60%) | 32 (35%) | 60 (65%)ESBLs+: 19 (31%) |
| 2015 | 17396 | 54 (0.32%) | 25 (47%) | 29 (53%)ESBLs+: 8 (27%) |
| 2016 | 23060 | 48 (0.20%) | 20 (42%) | 28 (58%)ESBLs+: 9 (32%) |
Failure to meet the hygiene standards: monthly results of nosocomial infection surveillance∗.
| Wards | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
| Neonatal ward (air) | 3 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Neonatal ward (hands) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Ped-1 (air) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ped-1 (hands) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Ped-2 (air) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ped-2 (hands) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| PICU (air) | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| PICU (hands) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Ped-3 (air)† | – | – | – | 0 | 0 |
| Ped-3 (hands)† | – | – | – | 2 | 0 |