Open Access

Changes in gram negative microorganisms’ resistance pattern during 4 years period in a referral teaching hospital; a surveillance study

  • Hossein Khalili1Email author,
  • Simin Dashti-Khavidaki1,
  • Mohammad-Reza Shahidi1,
  • Alireza Abdollahi2,
  • Sirous Jafari3,
  • Zahra Jahangard-Rafsanjani1 and
  • Azita-Hajhosssein Talasaz1
DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences201220:28

DOI: 10.1186/2008-2231-20-28

Received: 22 May 2012

Accepted: 18 July 2012

Published: 10 September 2012

Abstract

Background and purpose

Surveillance studies evaluating antimicrobial susceptibilities are of great value in preventing the spread of resistant pathogens by elucidating the trend of resistance in commonly used antibiotics and as a consequence providing information for prescribing the most appropriate agent. This study is a longitudinal antimicrobial resistance surveillance study designed to evaluate the trend in antimicrobial resistance to gram negative microorganisms from 2007 to 2010.

Method

During a four-year period (2007–2010) isolates derived from all patients admitted to infectious diseases ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital, the major referral center for infectious disease in Iran with the highest admission rates, were evaluated. Based on disk diffusion method and zone of inhibition size, the microorganism was regarded as to be sensitive, resistant or has intermediate susceptibility to the antimicrobial agents.

Results

The widest spread Gram-negative microorganism in all of isolates taken together in our study was E.coli (30%) followed by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in 28.6% and Enterobacter spp. in 11.9%, respectively. The susceptibility to amikacin, imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and nitrofurantoin was equal or above 50% for all microorganisms over four years. However, the susceptibility to ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, cefotaxim, and ceftriaxone was less than 50% in derived isolates during the study period.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the finding of the present study revealed that resistance rate to common antimicrobial agents in Iran is growing and isolates were susceptible mostly to broad-spectrum antibiotics including imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam.

Keywords

Gram negative microorganism Resistance pattern

Introduction

Antibiotic resistance is a critical challenge for infective diseases management around the word [13]. Infection with a resistant strain has been associated to higher rate of morbidity and mortality as well as prolonged length of hospital and intensive care unit stay and increased expenses for the healthcare systems [3, 4].

Surveillance studies evaluating antimicrobial susceptibilities are of great value in providing information for prescribing the most appropriate agent [5]. These studies could be used as a guide in antimicrobial usage policies in order to halt the expansion of microorganism resistance [610].

Although there are few reports on the antibiotic resistance in Iran, many of them are simple point-in-time prevalence studies or evaluated pathogens involved in a specific infectious disease [1114]. Present evaluation is a longitudinal antimicrobial resistance surveillance study designed to evaluate the trend in antimicrobial resistance to nosocomial origin gram negative microorganisms, from 2007 to 2010.

Methods

During a four-year period (2007–2010) isolates biological samples from all patients admitted to Infectious Diseases Ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, the major referral center for infectious disease in Iran with the highest admission rates, were evaluated. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Medical Ethics Committee of the hospital approved the study.

Isolates were sent to a central laboratory of the hospital for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing by Kirby – Bauer disc diffusion method. Based on zone of inhibition size the microorganism was regarded as to be sensitive, resistant or intermediate susceptibility to the antimicrobial agent. Microorganisms’ susceptibilities were investigated against those antimicrobials of clinical utility for the treatment of infections caused by susceptible Gram- negative bacteria available in the hospital. β-lactams such as ampicillin and piperacillin from penicillin class; cephalosporins including cefixime, cefotaxim, ceftazidim, ceftriaxone, cefepime; and the carbapenems such as imipenem were among evaluated antimicrobials. Combinations of penicillins with β-lactamase inhibitors including piperacillin-tazobactam and ampicillin-sulbactam, fluroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin, aminoglycosides including amikacin and gentamicin, nitrofurantoin and cotrimoxazole were those studied for antimicrobial resistance pattern in this surveillance. The trend in this pattern over four years was reviewed and reported.

Results

In a four-year period from 2007 to 2010, 1745 isolates were sent to the central library of the hospital, from those 983 (56.3%) were confirmed to be Gram-negative pathogens. The most frequent specimen sources were blood (46.2%) followed by the urine (27%), and wound (13.7. The most wide spread Gram-negative microorganism in all of isolates taken together in our study was E.coli (30%) followed by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in 28.6% and Enterobacter spp. in 11.9%, respectively. The frequency of microorganisms in terms of the derived isolates is shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Frequency of Gram-negative microorganisms according to the origins of specimen resource

Microorganism

Blood

Urine

Wound

Other

Total

E.Coli

14

201

40

30

285

Stenotrophomonas sp.

278

0

1

2

281

Enterobacter

64

42

5

6

117

Pseudomona

21

25

25

13

84

Acinetobacter

29

22

10

13

74

Kelebsiela

18

32

6

8

64

Proteus

2

9

20

11

42

Citrobacter

3

22

6

5

36

Total

429

353

113

88

983

The overall susceptibility of the specimens to antimicrobial agents did not remain the same over four years. For some of antimicrobial agents, the percentage of susceptible microorganisms was increased including ciprofloxacin (44.2 to 68.4%), piperacillin(33.3 to 66.7%) and piperacillin/tazobactam (77.8 to 89.5%). In contrast the susceptibility of nosocomial pathogens was reduced against nitrofurantoin (75.9 to 56%) in a four-year period. The susceptibility of microorganisms against all other antimicrobial agents showed non-steady pattern. The susceptibility to amikacin, imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and nitrofurantoin was equal or above 50% for microorganisms all over four years. However, the susceptibility to ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, cefotaxim, and ceftriaxone was less than 50% in derived isolates during the study period. The resistance rate of microorganism to Cefepime was increased in 2007–2008 while the susceptibilities were enhanced in 2009–2010.Comparison of the trend of resistance pattern of isolated bacteria of nosocomial originas well as the rate of frequency of each pathogen was illustrated in Table 2. Regarding the microorganisms, the most frequent resistances were seen in Acientobacter followed by Citrobacter with 50–73.7% and 58.3-65.8% resistant isolates, respectively. In contrast, Enterobcter was the most susceptible microorganism with resistance rate of 25.6-29.5% in the study period. The switches in the percent of resistant microorganism were not the same for all of the pathogens (Table 3). Proteus resistance was decreased in four-year period from 43.9% to 6.7% against all of the antibiotics taken together. Acinetobacter resistance to ciprofloxacin was increased whereas Enterobacter resistance rate to Gentamicin and Ciprofloxacin and E.coli resistance to Ceftazidim was decreased in four-year period. The number of resistant Entrobacter i solates to Cefixim was increased. From 2008 to 2010 the susceptibility rate of Acinetobacter against Ampicillin/sulbactam was reduced.
Table 2

Comparison of resistance pattern of isolated bacteria of nosocomial origin in four-year period

Antimicrobial agent/ microorganism

Susceptibility

Sensitive; n (%)

Intermediate; n (%)

Resistant; n (%)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2007

2008

2009

2010

2007

2008

2009

2010

Amikacin

Acinetobacter

8

13

7

1

1

0

0

1

9

6

9

8

Citrobacter

4

5

11

N/A

1

0

0

N/

7

7

20

N/

E.Coli

62

85

53

26

2

0

0

A

10

8

16

A

Enterobacter

20

34

25

13

0

0

1

0

1

1

3

4

Kelebsiella

13

10

12

4

2

0

0

0

7

1

6

1

Proteus spp.

8

4

13

5

0

0

0

1

3

0

1

1

Pseudomonas sp.

9

18

12

11

0

0

0

0

2

3

11

6

Stenotrophomonas sp.

9

40

83

25

2

1

0

0

11

31

29

24

Total

133 (69.6%)

209 (78.3%)

216 (69.2%)

85 (64.4%)

8 (4.2%)

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.3%)

1 3 (2.3%)

50 (26.2%)

57 (21.3%)

95 (30.4%)

44 (33.3%)

Ampicillin/sulbactam

Acinetobacter

1

5

11

3

0

0

0

0

3

3

10

5

E.Coli

3

6

15

7

0

0

2

1

2

12

49

15

Enterobacter

5

3

9

4

0

0

1

0

0

5

15

1

Kelebsiella

0

1

5

1

0

0

0

0

3

1

11

4

Proteus spp.

1

2

11

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Pseudomonas sp.

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

2

4

20

14

Stenotrophomonas sp.

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

9

19

5

2

Total

11 (35.5%)

18 (29%)

55 (32%)

21 (32.8%)

1 (3.2%)

0 (0)

3 (1.7%)

2 (3.1%)

19 (61.3%)

44 (71%)

114 (66.3%)

41 (64.1%)

Ampicillin

E.Coli

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

22

25

0

Enterobacter

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

5

4

2

Total

0 (0)

0 (0)

3 (9.4%)

1 (33.3%)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

3 (100%)

27 (100%)

29 (90.6%)

2 (66.7%)

Cotrimoxazole

Acinetobacter

7

6

5

1

0

0

0

0

14

10

13

8

Citrobacter

1

2

3

1

0

0

0

0

6

6

13

1

E.Coli

21

19

24

8

0

0

1

0

49

59

47

20

Enterobacter

12

24

21

8

0

0

0

0

11

13

7

4

Kelebsiella

6

5

7

2

0

0

0

0

17

3

12

4

Proteus spp.

4

2

4

3

0

1

0

0

7

3

9

1

Pseudomonas sp.

0

7

4

2

0

0

0

0

13

11

20

14

Stenotrophomonas sp.

22

78

107

35

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

10

Total

73 (38.2%)

143 (57%)

173 (58.2%)

60 (49.2%)

0 (0)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0)

118 (61.8%)

107 (42.6%)

123 (41.4%)

62 (51.8%)

Cefepim

E.Coli

3

4

7

2

0

0

0

0

3

3

5

1

Enterobacter

0

4

5

1

0

0

0

0

1

6

2

1

Proteus spp.

1

0

4

1

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

Pseudomonas sp.

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

8

4

3

Total

4 (40%)

8 (28.6%)

18 (62.1%)

5 (50%)

0 (0)

1 (3.6%)

0 (0)

0 (0)

6 (60%)

19 (67.9%)

11 (37.9%)

5 (50%)

Cefixime

Acinetobacter

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

7

3

1

E.Coli

3

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

11

10

0

1

Enterobacter

3

6

1

0

1

2

0

1

3

11

2

4

Proteus spp.

1

0

4

1

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

Pseudomonas sp.

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

8

4

3

Total

7 (25%)

8 (40%)

10 (52.6%)

2 (16.7%)

1 (3.6%)

3 (15%)

0 (0)

1 (8.3%)

20 (71.4%)

9 (45%)

9 (47.4%)

9 (75%)

Cefotaxim

Acinetobacter

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

3

5

1

Citrobacter

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

5

1

2

1

Pseudomonas sp.

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

1

4

1

Stenotrophomonas sp.

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

5

8

3

1

Total

2 (10%)

3 (18.7%)

0 (0)

3 (42.8%)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

18 (90%)

13 (91.3%)

14 (100%)

4 (57.2%)

Ceftazidim

Acinetobacter

0

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

4

8

5

2

E.Coli

3

3

7

15

0

0

1

0

4

16

43

6

Enterobacter

5

1

12

7

0

0

1

0

0

9

8

4

Kelebsiella

2

1

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

4

7

2

Proteus spp.

2

0

8

4

0

1

0

0

2

3

1

0

Pseudomonas sp.

2

0

4

3

0

0

0

0

1

12

12

4

Stenotrophomonas sp.

0

5

1

2

0

1

0

0

9

31

1

6

Total

14 (41.2%)

10 (10.4%)

40 (33.6%)

33 (57.9%)

0 (0)

3 (3.1%)

2 (1.7%)

0 (0)

20 (58.8%)

83 (86.4%)

77 (64.7%)

24 (42.1%)

Ciprofloxacin

Acinetobacter

9

4

7

1

0

1

0

0

8

8

13

6

E.Coli

19

26

24

13

0

0

0

0

44

51

49

18

Enterobacter

12

18

24

8

0

0

0

0

8

7

8

2

Kelebsiella

6

4

10

4

2

0

0

0

20

7

20

7

Proteus spp.

4

2

8

6

0

0

0

0

5

3

7

0

Pseudomonas sp.

8

6

10

12

0

1

1

0

2

9

14

3

Stenotrophomonas sp.

15

39

109

45

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

Total

73 (44.2%)

99 (53.2%)

192 (63.2%)

80 (68.4%)

2 (1.2%)

2 (1.1%)

1 (0.3%)

0 (0)

90 (54.5%)

85 (45.7%)

111 (36.5%)

37 (31.6%)

Gentamicin

Acinetobacter

5

9

4

1

1

0

0

0

9

2

6

5

E.Coli

18

49

24

12

1

1

2

0

32

35

36

8

Enterobacter

9

23

21

5

0

0

1

0

4

6

5

1

Kelebsiella

7

4

10

3

0

0

0

0

11

5

5

3

Proteus spp.

2

5

8

1

1

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

Pseudomonas sp.

5

12

1

4

0

0

0

0

3

7

10

2

Stenotrophomonas sp.

8

31

3

2

1

2

0

0

4

9

3

0

Total

54 (43%)

133 (66.5%)

71 (51.1%)

28 (58.3%)

4 (3%)

3 (1.5%)

3 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

67 (54%)

64 (32%)

65 (46.8%)

20 (51.7%)

Imipenem

Acinetobacter

8

15

20

7

0

3

0

1

4

0

1

3

E.Coli

25

47

77

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Enterobacter

12

30

31

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Kelebsiella

10

8

19

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Proteus spp.

7

6

17

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pseudomonas sp.

9

22

26

15

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

Stenotrophomona s sp.

2

10

2

2

0

1

1

0

20

49

7

9

Total

73 (74.5%)

132 (71.3%)

192 (95%)

80 (82.5%)

0 (0)

4 (2.2%)

1 (0.5%)

1 (1%)

25 (25.5%)

49 (26.5%)

9 (4.5%)

16 (16.5%)

Nitrofurantoin

Acinetobacter

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

5

3

0

2

E.Coli

31

68

39

10

1

1

0

0

2

11

11

1

Enterobacter

4

8

8

1

1

1

0

0

1

8

3

0

Kelebsiella

5

2

5

3

0

0

1

0

1

3

3

2

Proteus spp.

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

Pseudomonas sp.

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

8

3

5

Total

44 (75.9%)

81 (69.8%)

53 (69.7%)

14 (56%)

2 (3.5%)

2 (1.7%)

2 (2.6%)

0 (0)

12 (20.7%)

33 (28.5%)

21 (27.6%)

11 (44%)

Piperacillin

Acinetobacter

2

4

N/A

0

1

0

N/A

0

5

3

N/A

3

E.Coli

2

0

N/A

1

0

0

N/A

0

18

4

N/A

0

Enterobacter

9

14

N/A

6

0

0

N/A

0

2

4

N/A

1

Kelebsiella

3

2

N/A

1

0

0

N/A

0

6

4

N/A

0

Total

16 (33.3%)

20 (57.1%)

N/A

8 (66.7%)

1 (2.1%)

0 (0)

N/A

0 (0)

31 (64.6%)

15 (42.9%)

N/A

4 (33.3%)

Ceftriaxone

Acinetobacter

1

6

4

0

0

0

0

0

15

13

10

9

E.Coli

17

40

16

13

0

1

1

0

51

50

55

17

Enterobacter

9

19

19

10

0

0

1

0

9

12

8

5

Kelebsiella

3

3

5

2

1

0

0

0

16

6

13

4

Proteus spp.

5

3

14

6

0

0

0

0

5

0

2

0

Pseudomonas sp.

2

2

4

5

0

4

1

0

7

13

19

8

Stenotrophomonas sp.

1

5

3

2

0

0

1

0

16

65

91

49

Total

39 (24.5%)

78 (32.2%)

65 (24.3%)

38 (29.2%)

1 (0.6%)

5 (2.1%)

4 (1.5%)

0 (0)

119 (74.8%)

159 (65.7%)

198 (74.2%)

92 (70.8%)

Piperacillin/tazobactam

Acinetobacter

2

1

12

3

0

0

0

0

1

1

5

0

E.Coli

1

3

22

18

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Proteus spp.

1

1

12

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Pseudomonas sp.

1

3

13

6

0

0

0

1

1

0

4

0

Stenotrophomonas sp.

2

3

5

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

Total

7 (77.8%)

11 (78.6%)

64 (86.5%)

34 (89.5%)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (2.6%)

2 (22.2%)

3 (21.4%)

10 (13.5%)

3 (7.9%)

Table 3

Comparison of resistance pattern of isolated bacteria against different antimicrobial agents in four-year period

Microorganism / Antimicrobial agent

Susceptibility

Sensitive; n (%)

Intermediate; n (%)

Resistant; n (%)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2007

2008

2009

2010

2007

2008

2009

2010

Acinetobacter

Amikacin

8

13

7

1

1

0

0

1

9

6

9

8

Ampicillin/sulbactam

1

5

11

3

0

0

0

0

4

8

21

8

Cotrimoxazole

7

6

5

1

0

0

0

0

14

10

13

8

Cefixime

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

7

3

1

Cefotaxime

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

3

5

1

Ceftazidim

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

4

10

7

2

Ciprofloxacin

9

4

7

1

0

1

0

0

8

8

13

6

Gentamicin

5

9

4

1

1

0

0

0

9

2

6

5

Imipenem

8

15

20

7

0

3

0

1

4

0

1

3

Nitrofurantoine

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

5

3

0

2

Piperacillin

2

4

N/A

0

1

0

N/A

0

5

3

N/A

3

Ceftriaxone

1

6

4

0

0

0

0

0

15

13

10

9

Piperacillin/ tazobactam

2

1

12

3

0

0

0

0

1

1

5

0

Total

46 (34.1%)

68 (45.9%)

74 (44.3%)

18 (23.7%)

3 (2.2%)

4 (2.7%)

0 (0)

2 (2.6%)

86 (63.7%)

74 (50%)

93 (55.7%)

56 (73.7%)

Citrobacter

Amikacin

4

5

11

N/A

1

0

0

N/A

2

2

9

N/A

Cotrimoxazole

1

2

3

N/A

0

0

0

 

6

6

13

N/A

Cefixime

0

1

0

N/A

0

0

0

N/A

1

1

1

N/A

Ciprofloxacin

2

3

3

N/A

0

0

0

 

6

4

21

N/A

Gentamicin

1

5

4

N/A

0

0

0

N/A

5

1

11

N/A

Imipenem

4

3

20

N/A

0

0

0

N/A

0

0

0

N/A

Ceftriaxone

0

1

3

N/A

0

0

1

N/A

5

14

16

N/A

Total

12 (31.6%)

20 (41.7%)

44 (37.9%)

N/A

1 (2.6%)

0 (0)

1 (0.9%)

N/A

25 (65.8%)

28 (58.3%)

71 (61.2%)

N/A

E. coli

Amikacin

62

85

53

26

2

0

0

0

10

8

16

4

Ampicillin/sulbactam

3

6

15

7

0

0

2

1

2

12

49

15

Ampicillin

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

22

26

1

Cotrimoxazole

21

19

24

8

0

0

1

0

49

59

47

20

Cefepime

3

4

7

2

0

0

0

0

3

23

5

1

Cefixime

3

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

11

10

0

1

Ceftazidim

3

3

7

15

0

0

1

0

4

16

43

6

Ciprofloxacin

19

26

24

13

0

0

0

0

44

51

49

18

Gentamicin

18

49

24

12

1

1

2

0

32

35

26

8

Imipenem

25

47

77

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Nitrofurantoine

31

68

39

10

1

1

0

0

2

11

11

1

Ceftriaxone

17

40

16

13

0

1

1

0

51

50

55

17

Piperacillin/ tazobactam

1

3

22

18

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

Total

206 (49.1%)

352 (53.8%)

311 (48.1%)

154 (61.8%)

4 (0.9%)

4 (0.6%)

8 (1.2%)

1 (0.4%)

210 (50%)

298 (45.6%)

327 (50.6%)

94 (37.7%)

Enterobacter

20

34

25

13

0

0

1

0

1

1

3

1

Amikacin

5

3

9

4

0

0

1

0

0

5

15

1

Ampicillin/sulbactam

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

5

4

2

Ampicillin

12

24

21

8

0

0

0

0

11

13

7

4

Cotrimoxazole

0

4

5

1

0

0

0

0

1

6

2

1

Cefepime

3

6

1

0

1

2

0

1

3

11

2

4

Cefixime

5

11

12

7

0

0

1

0

0

9

8

4

Ceftazidim

12

18

24

8

0

0

0

0

8

7

8

2

Ciprofloxacin

9

23

21

5

0

0

1

0

4

6

5

1

Gentamicin

12

30

31

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Imipenem

4

8

8

1

1

1

0

0

1

8

3

0

Nitrofurantoine

9

19

19

10

0

0

1

0

9

12

8

5

Ceftriaxone

Total

91 (68.9%)

180 (67.7%)

178 (72.3%)

70 (72.2%)

2 (1.5%)

3 (1.1%)

5 (20.3%)

1 (0.1%)

39 (29.5%)

83 (31.2%)

63 (25.6%)

26 (26.8%)

Kelebsiella

Amikacin

13

10

12

4

2

0

0

1

7

1

6

1

Ampicillin/sulbactam

0

1

5

1

0

0

0

0

3

1

11

4

Cotrimoxazole

6

5

7

2

0

0

0

0

17

3

12

4

Cefixime

1

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

9

3

0

1

Ceftazidim

2

1

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

4

7

2

Ciprofloxacin

6

4

10

4

2

0

0

0

12

3

10

3

Gentamicin

7

4

10

3

0

0

0

0

11

5

5

3

Imipenem

10

8

19

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nitrofurantoine

5

2

5

3

0

0

1

0

1

3

3

2

Ceftriaxone

3

3

5

2

1

0

0

0

16

6

13

4

Total

53 (39.5%)

41 (57.7%)

70 (50.7%)

27 (51.9%)

5 (3.7%)

1 (1.4%)

1 (0.7%)

1 (1.9%)

76 (56.7%)

29 (40.8%)

67 (48.5%)

24 (46.1%)

Proteus

Amikacin

8

4

13

5

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

Ampicillin/sulbactam

1

2

11

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Cotrimoxazole

4

2

4

3

0

1

0

0

7

3

9

1

Cefepime

1

0

4

1

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

Ceftazidim

2

0

8

4

0

1

0

0

2

3

1

0

Ciprofloxacin

4

2

8

6

0

0

0

0

5

3

7

0

Gentamicin

2

5

8

1

1

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

Imipenem

7

6

17

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nitrofurantoine

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

Ceftriaxone

5

3

14

6

0

0

0

0

5

0

2

0

Piperacillin/ tazobactam

1

1

12

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

36 (54.5%)

26 (65%)

99 (79.8%)

42 (93.3%)

1 (1.5%)

3 (7.5%)

0 (0)

0 (0)

29 (43.9%)

11 (27.5%)

25 (20.2%)

3 (6.7%)

Pseudomona

Amikacin

9

18

12

11

0

0

0

0

2

3

11

6

Ampicillin/sulbactam

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

2

4

20

14

Cotrimoxazole

0

7

4

2

0

0

0

0

13

11

20

14

Cefepime

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

8

4

3

Ceftazidim

2

0

4

3

0

0

0

0

1

12

12

4

Ciprofloxacin

8

6

10

12

0

1

1

0

2

9

14

3

Gentamicin

5

12

1

4

0

0

0

0

3

7

10

2

Imipenem

9

22

26

15

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

Nitrofurantoine

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

8

3

5

Ceftriaxone

2

2

4

5

0

4

1

0

7

13

19

8

Piperacillin/ tazobactam

1

3

13

6

0

0

0

1

1

0

4

3

Total

37 (52.1%)

70 (46.7%)

79 (39.9%)

59 (48%)

0 (0)

5 (3.3%)

3 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

34 (47.9%)

75 (50%)

118 (62.1%)

63 (51.2%)

Stenotrophomonas sp.

Amikacin

9

40

83

25

2

1

0

1

11

31

29

24

Ampicillin/sulbactam

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

9

19

5

2

Cotrimoxazole

22

78

107

35

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

10

Cefixime

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

44

2

9

Cefotaxime

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

5

8

3

1

Ceftazidim

0

5

1

2

0

1

0

0

9

31

1

6

Ciprofloxacin

15

39

109

45

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

Gentamicin

8

31

3

2

1

2

0

0

4

9

3

0

Imipenem

2

10

2

2

1

1

0

0

20

49

7

9

Ceftriaxone

1

5

3

2

0

0

1

0

16

65

91

49

Piperacillin/ tazobactam

2

3

5

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

Total

61 (38.6%)

212 (44.5%)

314 (68.4%)

116 (50.6%)

7 (4.4%)

5 (1%)

1 (0.2%)

2 (0.9%)

90 (57%)

259 (54.5%)

144 (31.4%)

111 (48.5%)

Discussion

Antimicrobial resistance is a widespread problem that health care providers are encountered with all over the world. Determining the specific pattern of antibiotic resistance especially in infectious diseases wards of main hospitals in every country is of great value for controlling the rate of increasing resistance as well as helping in empirical treatment. Since Imam Khomeini hospital Complex is the main center for infectious diseases in Iran with the highest admission rates, we can say that a serious problem of antimicrobial resistance to commonly used antibiotics exists among different isolates in Iran.

The most frequent isolated pathogen from all specimens taken together was E. coli followed by S. maltophilia and Enterobacter sp. with E. coli being the major derived pathogen from urine and S. maltophilia from bloodstream samples. In a similar Korean study, E. coli had the first rank in terms of the most prevalent organism isolated, Pseudomona sp., and Klebseilla sp. had the next ranks among isolated gram-negative pathogens [15]. During 2000 to 2002, more than 220,000 isolated were collected from intensive care units of five countries including France, Germany, Italy, Canada and United States, in which the most common gram-negative pathogen was E. coli followed by Pseudomona sp.[16]. S. maltophilia which was the most common pathogen for bloodstream samples in the present study, were less common in western countries, however it was also seen frequently in Saudi isolates [17].

Antibiotic resistance among Acinetobacter spp., and Citrobacter spp. were more frequent in comparison with other isolated pathogens, and our susceptibility rates were similar to rates reported from other regions of the world [18, 19]. However, the susceptibility rate of Acinetobacter spp. in our study was less than similar surveillance five-year study in Children Medical Center in Iran [20] and was more consistent with reports of antimicrobial resistance from other parts of the world [19, 21]. Since that Iranian report dated back to approximately a decade ago, this may demonstrate the increase in the rate of Acinetobacter resistance in Iran like other countries over the world. Moreover, the resistance frequency rate of Acinetobacter to Ampicillin/sulbactam had an increasing trend after 2007. This was because the availability of generic Iranian formulation of this specific antibiotic in 2007 as well as the administration of oral dosage forms which was used widespread in that year.

The most commonly administered antibiotics in different countries all over the world are β-lactams, and decreased susceptibility of nosocomial pathogens to this therapeutic class of antibiotics has resulted in a major clinical disaster [22]. Iran is not an exception for this statement, and cephalosporines are commonly used in the country because of their availability as well as low rate of adverse events [12]. With respect to antibiotics, the most frequent resistance to antibiotics was observed in ampicillin (66.7-100%) and third generation cephalosporines consisting of cefotaxime (57.2-100%), ceftazidim (42.1-86.4%), cefixime (45-75%) and ceftriaxone (65.7-74.8%). To elucidate the importance of increasing resistance, it is worth mentioning that even the resistant rate of Enterobacter as the most susceptible microorganism to cefixime was increased in a four-year period. In contrast, the lowest resistant rates were seen with imipenem (4.5-26.5%),piperacillin/tazobactam (7.9-22.2%), and amikacin (21.3-33.3%). Resistance to third generation cephalosporines in this study was higher than similar studies evaluating the susceptibility rates of gram-negative pathogens [2325]. This higher resistance can be attributed to the frequent use of third generation cephalosporines in the empirical management of infectious in Iran as the resistance rate of E.coli to ceftazidim was reduced after its administration was reduced and it was omitted from local protocols of empiric treatment for a period of time. Resistance of microorganisms to Cefepime, as a fourth generation cephalosporine, had an increasing trend in 2007–2008 but with restrictions in its usage the susceptibility rates were improved in 2009–2010.In contrast to previous studies that reported an increase in the resistance rate to fluoroquinolones [26, 27], we found an improving susceptibility to ciprofloxacin in our study in a four-year period with Acinetobacter as an exception. This can be partly explained by the fact that fluoroquinolones are not routinely used as an empirical antibiotic for infectious diseases in Imam Hospital. In the present study, resistance to ciprofloxacin was 31.6-54.5% that was less than similar previous evaluation in Argentina with resistance rate of more than 80% [28]. On the other hand, the majority of the nosocomial pathogens from various specimen resources in the present study were susceptible to imipenem and this was consistent through the assessment period. As there was a correlation between previous use of fluoroquinolones and imipenem resistance [29, 30], the low administration rate of ciprofloxacin and as a consequence improved sensitivity of organisms to this agent can be the reason behind the susceptibility of most of the organisms to imipenem. The low resistance rate of isolates to imipenem was also reported in previous Belgian and Polish studies with 13% and 8% resistant isolated, respectively [23, 25]. In contrast, in Turkish patients resistance to imipenem was slightly more prevalent than that of our study [31]. Amikacin was among the most active antimicrobial agents against isolates with the low resistant rate of 21.3-33.3%. Studies performed over a long time period revealed that the increase in resistance to aminoglycosides is milder than for any other antimicrobial agent even with continued administration [32, 33].

In conclusion, the finding of the present study revealed that resistance rate to common antimicrobial agents in Iran is growing and isolates were susceptible mostly to broad-spectrum antibiotics including imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam. As the antibiotic resources of developing countries including Iran are limited, periodic surveillances of antimicrobial resistance patterns play a vital role in controlling the spread of resistant strains as well as implementing protocols for halting the process. Moreover, it is rational to establish a committee for appropriate antibiotic administration to control the use of antimicrobial agents at the same time of performing surveillance studies for the aim of effective infection management. Such surveillance studies could help in limiting the rate of antimicrobial resistance all over the world.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

We must appreciate the staffs of Valiasr Laboratory Department for their supports.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
(2)
Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
(3)
Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

References

  1. Masterton RG: Surveillance studies: how can they help in the management of infection?. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000, 46: 53-58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Masterton R, Drusano G, Paterson DL, Park G: Appropriate antimicrobial treatment in nosocomial infections—the clinical challenges. J Hosp Infect. 2003, 55: 1-12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kollef MH, Fraser VJ: Antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 134: 298-314.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kollef M: Appropriate empirical antibacterial therapy for nosocomial infections: getting it right the first time. Drug. 2003, 63: 2157-2168. 10.2165/00003495-200363200-00001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Turner PJ: Trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities among bacterial pathogens isolated from patients hospitalized in European medical centers: 6-year report of the MYSTIC Surveillance Study (1997–2002). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005, 51: 281-289. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2004.11.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Morris AK, Masterton RG: Antibiotic resistance surveillance: action for international studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002, 49: 7-10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis D: Antimicrobial resistance surveillance: methods will depend on objectives. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002, 49: 3-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fontana R, Lo CG, Giacobone E, Romero E, Cipriani P, Sessa R, Franchino L: Resistance surveillance in Italy: four-year results from the MYSTIC Program. J Chemother. 2002, 14: 323-331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia-Rodriguez JA, Jones RN, The MYSTIC Programme Study Group: Antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative isolates from European intensive care units: data from the Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection (MYSTIC) Programme. J Chemother. 2002, 14: 25-32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Masterton RG, Kuti JL, Turner PJ, Nicolau DP: The OPTAMA Programme: utilizing MYSTIC (2002) to predict critical pharmacody- namic target attainment against nosocomial pathogens in Europe. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005, 55: 71-77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Aslani MM, Alikhani MY, Zavari A, Yousefi R, Zamani AR: Characterization of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) clinical isolates and their antibiotic resistance pattern. Int J Infect Dis. 2011, 15: e136-e139. 10.1016/j.ijid.2010.10.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadadi A, Rasoulinejad M, Maleki Z, Yonesian M, Shirani A, Kourorian Z: Antimicrobial resistance pattern of Gram-negative bacilli of nosocomial origin at 2 university hospitals in Iran. Diagn Microbiol Infec Dis. 2008, 60: 301-305. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.10.010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Vessal G, Afhami S, Gholami K, Shafaghi B, Yazdi SH: Evaluation of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative isolates collected from intensive care units and reliability of routine disc susceptibility tests at a teaching hospital in tehran. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2006, 2: 89-100.Google Scholar
  14. Bush K: Bench-to-bedside review: The role of β-lactamases in antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative infections. Crit Care. 2010, 14: 224-10.1186/cc8892.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee K, Lee MA, Lee CH, Lee J, Roh KH, Kim S, Kim JJ, Koh E, Yong D, Chong Y: KONSAR Group. Increase of ceftazidime- and fluoroquinolone-resistant Klebsiellapneumoniae and imipenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. in Korea: analysis of KONSAR study data from 2005 and 2007. Yonsei Med J. 2010, 51: 901-911. 10.3349/ymj.2010.51.6.901.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones ME, Darghi DC, Thornsberry C, Karlowsky JA, Sahm DF, Wenzel RB: Emerging resistance among bacterial pathogens in the intensive care unit: A European and North American Surveillance study 2000–2002. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2004, 3: 14-10.1186/1476-0711-3-14.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Al-Johani SM, Akhter J, Balkhy H, El-Saed A, Younan M, Memish Z: Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative isolates in an adult intensive care unit at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2010, 30: 364-369.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Winokur PL, Canton R, Casellas JM, Legakis N: Variations in the prevalence of strains expressing an extended spectrum β-lactamase phenotype and characterization of isolates from Europe, the Americas, and the Western Pacific region. Clin Infect Dis. 2001, 32: S94-S103. 10.1086/320182.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gales AC, Jones RN, Forward KR, Linares J, Sader HS, Verhoef J: Emerging importance of multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter species and Stenotrophomonas maltophiliaas pathogens in seriously ill patients: geographic patterns, epidemiological features, and trends in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997–1999). Clin Infect Dis. 2001, 32: S104-S113. 10.1086/320183.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mamishi S, Pourakbari B, Ashtiani MH, Hashemi FB: Frequency of isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria isolated from bloodstream infections at Children’s Medical Center, Tehran, Iran, 1996–2000. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005, 26: 373-379. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.08.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fluit AC, Jones ME, Schmitz FJ, Acar J, Gupta R, Verhoef J: Antimicrobial susceptibility and frequency of occurrence of clinical blood isolates in Europe from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance pro- gram, 1997 and 1998. Clin Infect Dis. 2000, 30: 454-460. 10.1086/313710.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jean SS, Teng LJ, Hsueh PR, Ho SW, Luh KT: Antimicrobial susceptibilities among clinical isolates of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in a Taiwanese University Hospital. J Antimicrobiol Chemother. 2002, 49: 69-76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Glupczynski Y, Delmee M, Goossens H, Struelens M: Belgian Multicenter ICU Study Group. Distribution and prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative isolates in intensive care units (ICU) in Belgian hospitals between 1996 and 1999. Acta Clin Belg. 2001, 56: 297-306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ishii Y, Alba J, Kimura S, Yamaguchi K: Evaluation of antimicrobialactivity of betalactam antibiotics by E-test against clinical isolates from100 medical centers in Japan. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006, 55: 143-148. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Patzer J, Dzierzanowska D, Turner P: Susceptibility patterns of Gram- negative bacteria from a Polish intensive care unit, 1997–2000. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002, 9: 431-434.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Ko WC, Hsueh PR: Increasing extended-spectrum b-lactamase production and quinolone resistance among Gram-negative bacilli causing intra-abdominal infections in the Asia/Pacific region: Data from the Smart Study 2002–2006. J Infect. 2009, 59: 95-103. 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.06.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Karlowsky JA, Jones ME, Draghi DC, Thornsberry C, Sahm DF, Volturo GA: Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of bacteria isolated from blood cultures of hospitalized patients in the United States in 2002. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2004, 3: 7-14. 10.1186/1476-0711-3-7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodriguez CH, Juarez J, de Mier C, Pugliese L, Blanco G, Vay C: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics in gram-negative rods isolated from intensive care units. Comparative analysis between two periods (1998 and 2001). Medicina. 2003, 63: 21-27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lautenbach E, Weiner MG, Nachamkin I, Bilker WB, Sheridan A, Fishman NO: Imipenem resistance among Pseudomonas aerugi- nosa isolates: risk factors for infection and impact of resis- tance on clinical and economic outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006, 27: 893-900. 10.1086/507274.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tanimoto K, Tomita H, Fujimoto S, Okuzumi K, Ike Y: Fluoroquinolone enhances the mutation frequency for meropenem-selected carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but use of the high-potency drug doripenem inhibits mutant formation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008, 52: 3795-3800. 10.1128/AAC.00464-08.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kucukates E: Antimicrobial resistance among Gram-negative bacteria isolated from intensive care units in a Cardiology Institute in Istanbul Turkey. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2005, 58: 228-231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gerding DN, Larson TA, Hughes RA: Aminoglycoside resistance and aminoglycoside usage: ten years of experience in one hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991, 35: 1284-1290. 10.1128/AAC.35.7.1284.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hsueh PR, Chen WH, Luh KT: Relationships between antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative bacteria causing nosocomial infections from 1991–2003 at a university hospital in Taiwan. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005, 26: 463-472. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.08.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Khalili et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement