|
|
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS |
|
|
|
| Year : 2002 | Volume
: 56
| Issue : 9 | Page : 427-430 |
| |
Antibiotic sensitivity patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from various clinical specimens
S Shenoy, S Baliga, DR Saldanha, HV Prashanth
Department of Microbiology, University Medical Centre, Kasturba Medical College, Light House Hill Road, Mangalore 575001,
Correspondence Address:
S Shenoy
Department of Microbiology, University Medical Centre, Kasturba Medical College, Light House Hill Road, Mangalore 575001
PMID: 12710338
How to cite this article:
Shenoy S, Baliga S, Saldanha D R, Prashanth H V. Antibiotic sensitivity patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from various clinical specimens. Indian J Med Sci 2002;56:427-30 |
How to cite this URL:
Shenoy S, Baliga S, Saldanha D R, Prashanth H V. Antibiotic sensitivity patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from various clinical specimens. Indian J Med Sci [serial online] 2002 [cited 2013 May 18];56:427-30. Available from: http://www.indianjmedsci.org/text.asp?2002/56/9/427/11968 |
< Pseudomonas aeruginosa  a virulent opportunistic pathogen which is one of the major causes of hospital acquired infection. It has the unique ability to infect all body systems.[1],[2] It almost exclusively infects hospitalized patients with lowered host resistance and is the most frequent pathogen isolated from nosocomial infections in the ICU.[3] Despite introduction of a wide variety of antimicrobial agents with anti-pseudomonal activity, life-threatening infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa contributes to morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Therefore a study was conducted to determine the antibiotic sensitivity patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from various clinical specimens obtained from hospitalized patients.
| ¤ Materials and methods | |  |
The study was conducted over a period of one year (Jan 2000- Dec 2000) at University Medical Centre, Mangalore.
Samples were obtained from patients who were hospitalized for more than one week duration. The various specimens obtained were urine, tracheal aspirate, blood and exudate from any lesion which was present (e.g. Burn wound, non-healing ulcer, post- operative wounds). A total of 1567 samples were obtained. All samples were plated on 5% blood agar and MacConkey's agar and incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. Each colony suspected to be Pseudomonas aeruginosa was picked and identified according to the procedure described in Manual of Clinical Microbiology.[4] All the isolates that were identified as Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility using Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method.[5] Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 was used as the control strain. The antibiotics tested were Gentamicin (10 mcg), Tobramycin (10 mcg), Amikacin (30mcg), Piperacillin (100mcg), Netilmicin (30mcg), Ceftazidime (30 mcg) and Cefoperazone (75 mcg).
| ¤ Results | | |
494 Strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were obtained [Table - 1]. The rate of isolation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 31.52%. Exudates followed by urine accounted for the maximum isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa viz. 290 (42.33%) and 74 (34.9%). Most of the exudates that grew Pseudomonas aeruginosa (188{64.82%}) belonged to burn patients. All the urine samples were obtained from catheterized patients. The antimicrobial sensitivity testing revealed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were highly resistant to most antipseudomonal antibiotics [Table - 2]; Amikacin was found to be the most suitable antibiotic for routine use with a sensitivity of 68.01%.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was highly resistant to Netilmicin showing resistance of 70.04%. Surprisingly Gentamicin showed a relatively higher sensitivity of 55.87%. This could be attributed to the decreased usage of Gentamicin in our hospital. Ceftazidime and Cefoperazone being relatively newer antibiotics showed higher sensitivity 57.08% and 55.87% respectively. Imipenem and Meropenem showed 100% sensitivity.
150 strains that were multi-drug resistant were tested with Imipenem (100mcg) and were found to be uniformly sensitive. It was seen that strains isolated from blood were the most resistant showing overall resistance of 49.55%.
| ¤ Discussion | | |
With the widespread use of antibiotics and the increase in number of immunosuppressed hosts, Pseudomonas aeruginosa has become a leading cause of gram negative bacterial infections especially in immunosuppressed patients who need prolonged hospitalization[6],[7],[8] It was also noted that Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia is associated with higher mortality than other gram negative bacteremia.[9] The underlying immunosuppression as well as the resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to several antibiotics could be a contributory factor. To overcome the latter, several studies indicate that a combination of antibiotics is the preferable therapy for severe Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections.[10],[11]
| ¤ Summary | | |
1567 clinical samples were obtained for the study; 494 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were isolated (isolation rate of 31.52) and their antibiotic sensitivity patterns tested using Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method. The antibiotic sensitivity testing revealed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were highly resistant to most anti-pseudomonal antibiotics; Amikacin was found to be most suitable for routine use with a sensitivity of 68.01 % and the most resistant antibiotic was Netilmicin showing 70.04% resistance. Surprisingly, Gentamicin showed a relatively higher sensitivity of 55.87%. Sensitivity to Imipenem and Meropenem was 100%.
| ¤ References | | |
| 1. | Pollack M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In: Mandell GL, Douglas RG, Bennet JE, eds. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 3 rdsub ed. pp. 1673-91, New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1990.  |
| 2. | Stratton CW. Topics in Clinical Microbiology: Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect control 1983; 4:36-40. |
| 3. | Trila A. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Intensive Care Med, 1994; 20 (suppl.): 1-4. |
| 4. | Gillgan PH. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia. In: Murrey PR, Baron EJ, Pfaler AA, et al, eds. Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 6 thsub ed. pp. 509-19, Washington DC, American Society for Microbiology, 1995. |
| 5. | Bauer AN, Kirby WMM, Sherris J, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol, 1966; 45: 493-6. |
| 6. | Schimpff SC, Moody M., Young VM. Relationship of colonization with Pseudomonas aeruginosa to development of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia in cancer patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 1970:240-4. |
| 7. | Korvick JA, Marsh JW, Starzl TE, Yu VL. Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia in patients undergoing liver transplantation: an emerging problem. Surgery 1991;109: 62-8. |
| 8. | Griffith SJ, Nathan C, Selander RK, et al. The epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in oncology patients in a general hospital. J Infect Dis 1989; 160:1030-6. |
| 9. | Young LS. The clinical challenge of infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6 (suppl.3): 603-7. |
| 10. | Hilf M., Yu VL, Sharp J, Zuravleff JJ, Korvick JA, Muder RR. Antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: outcome correlations in a prospective study of 200 patients. AM J Med, 1989; 87: 540-6. |
| 11. | Baltch AL, Smith RP. Combinations of antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Am J Med, 1985; 79 (suppl.1A): 8-16. |
Tables
[Table - 1], [Table - 2]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
A study of pseudomonas species isolated from clinical specimen with their antimicrobial sensitivity pattern |
|
| Gupta, D., Hazarika, N.K. | | Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development. 2010; 1(1): 51-58 | | [Pubmed] | |
|
|
|
|
