| Literature DB >> 35884104 |
Sholpan Kaliyeva1, Natalya Simokhina1, Alyona Lavrinenko2, Gulzira Zhussupova3, Serik Zhunusov4, Polina Semenikhina5, Yuliya Bikbatyrova1, Berik Yelmagambetov6, Zhanna Myasnikova1.
Abstract
The upper urinary tract stenting allows to restore the ureteral patency in various situations. However, one of the main disadvantages of stenting is bacterial contamination, which can be a source of persistent infections that hardly respond to antibiotic therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the local spectrum of bacterial pathogens and their susceptibility to antibiotics in order to optimize antibacterial therapy after upper urinary tract stenting. A prospective observational study was conducted in which 140 urine samples were examined (70 before stenting and 70 after stenting). Bacterial growth was detected in 37 patients (52.8%) before stenting and in 43 patients (61.4%) after stenting. E. coli (13 (28.8%)) and Streptococcus spp. (8 (17.6%)) strains were more commonly detected before stenting; P. aeruginosa (15 (31.2%)) and E. coli (8 (16.6%)) were usually revealed after stenting. The proportion of P. aeruginosa strains after stenting grew from 4.4% up to 31.2%. E. coli strains were resistant to ampicillin (92.3% before and 100% after stenting). Three strains of E. coli (23.1%) and six strains of P. aeruginosa (40%) were multidrug-resistant. Determination of the bacterial sensitivity to antibiotics and identification of antibiotic-resistant forms of bacteria is a factor in reducing the risk of complications and optimizing antibiotic therapy during the upper urinary tract stenting.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic stewardship; antibiotic susceptibility; antibiotics; antimicrobial resistance; stenting; upper urinary tract; urinary tract infections
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884104 PMCID: PMC9312341 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11070850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Microorganisms detected in urine samples before and after upper urinary tract stenting.
| Microorganism | Before Stenting | After Stenting |
|---|---|---|
|
| 24 (53%) | 15 (31.3%) |
|
| 13 (28.8%) | 8 (16.6%) |
|
| 4 (8.8%) | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 3 (6.6%) | 2 (4.2%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 1 (2.2%) | - |
|
| 1 (2.2%) | 2 (4.2%) |
|
| - | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 16 (33.3%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 15 (31.2%) |
|
| - | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 5 (11.1%) | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 4 (8.8%) | - |
|
| 1 (2.2%) | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 6 (13.2%) | 6 (12.6%) |
|
| 4 (8.8%) | 2 (4.2%) |
|
| 2 (6.6%) | 4 (8.4%) |
|
| 5 (11.1%) | 6 (12.5%) |
|
| 3 (6.6%) | 4 (4.8%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| - | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 3 (6.2%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 3 (6.2%) |
|
| 1 (2.2%) | 1 (2.1%) |
|
| 1 (2.2%) | 1 (2.1%) |
| Total number | 45 | 48 |
Figure 1Changes in microflora after the upper urinary tract stenting.
Antibiotic sensitivity of the main strains of microorganisms isolated before stenting.
| Antibiotic | AWARE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | 1 (7.7%) | access | |||
| AMS | 13 (100%) | 4 (100%) | access | ||
| AMC | 3 (75%) | 4 (100%) | access | ||
| PTZ | 9 (69%) | 2 (50%) | watch | ||
| CAZ | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| CTX | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| CXM | 11 (84.6%) | 2 (50%) | watch | ||
| CRO | 11 (84.6%) | 3 (75%) | watch | ||
| FEP | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| IPM | 13 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| MER | 13 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| TOB | 13 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| GEN | 10 (76.9%) | 4 (100%) | access | ||
| AMI | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | access | ||
| OFX | 13 (100%) | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | |
| LVX | 12 (92.3%) | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | |
| CIP | 8 (61.5%) | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (100%) | watch |
| NOR | 4 (100%) | watch | |||
| VAN | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| LIN | 4 (100%) | watch | |||
| LNZ | 4 (100%) | reserve | |||
| TCY | 3 (75%) | access | |||
| COL | 4 (100%) | reserve |
The number of susceptible strains of bacteria (percentage), AMP—ampicillin, AMS—ampicillin/sulbactam, AMC—amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, PTZ—piperacillin/tazobactam, CAZ—ceftazidime, CTX—cefotaxime, CRO—ceftriaxone, CXM—cefuroxime, FEP—cefepime, IPM—imipenem, MER—meropenem, TOB—tobramycin, GEN—gentamicin, AMI—amikacin, OFX—ofloxacin, LVX—levofloxacin, CIP—ciprofloxacin, NOR—norfloxacin, VAN—vancomycin, LIN—lincomycin, LNZ—linezolid, TCY—tetracycline, COL—colistin.
Antibiotic sensitivity of the main strains of microorganisms isolated after stenting.
| Antibiotic | AWARE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | 0 (0%) | 4 (100%) | access | |||
| PIP | 3 (100%) | access | ||||
| TCC | 0 (0%) | access | ||||
| CAZ | 2 (13.3%) | 6 (75%) | 3 (100%) | watch | ||
| CTX | 5 (62.5%) | watch | ||||
| CRO | 6 (75%) | watch | ||||
| FEP | 3 (20%) | 7 (87.5%) | 3 (100%) | watch | ||
| IPM | 6 (40%) | 8 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | ||
| MER | 4 (26.7%) | 8 (100%) | 3 (100%) | watch | ||
| ATM | 3 (100%) | watch | ||||
| TOB | 8 (53.3%) | 8 (100%) | 3 (100%) | watch | ||
| GEN | 8 (100%) | 2 (50%) | 1 (33.3%) | watch | ||
| AMI | 9 (60%) | 8 (100%) | access | |||
| OFX | 8 (100%) | access | ||||
| LVX | 8 (100%) | 0 (0%) | watch | |||
| CIP | 4 (26.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (50%) | 1 (33.3%) | watch | |
| VAN | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | |||
| TEIC | 4 (100%) | watch | ||||
| LNZ | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) | watch | |||
| TCY | 4 (100%) | watch | ||||
| COL | 9 (100%) | reserve | ||||
| POL | 15 (100%) | access | ||||
| FOS | 6 (100%) | reserve | ||||
| AZM | 2 (50%) |
The number of susceptible strains of bacteria (percentage), AMP—ampicillin, PIP—piperacillin, TCC—ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, AMS—ampicillin/sulbactam, AMC—amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, PTZ –piperacillin/tazobactam, CAZ—ceftazidime, CTX—cefotaxime, CRO—ceftriaxone, CXM—cefuroxime, FEP—cefepime, IPM—imipenem, MER—meropenem, ATM—aztreonam, TOB—tobramycin, GEN—gentamicin, AMI—amikacin, OFX—ofloxacin, LVX—levofloxacin, CIP—ciprofloxacin, NOR—norfloxacin, VAN—vancomycin, TEIC—teicoplanin, LIN—lincomycin, LNZ—linezolid, TCY—tetracycline, COL—colistin, POL—polymixin B, FOS—fosfomycin, AZM—azithromycin.