Demir Cengiz, Keşli Recep
Afyon Kocatepe University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
Mikrobiyol Bul. 2018 Jan;52(1):72-79. doi: 10.5578/mb.66175.
The aim of this study was to identify gram-negative anaerobic bacilli isolated from various clinical specimens that were obtained from patients with suspected anaerobic infections and to determine the antibiotic resistance profiles by using the antibiotic concentration gradient method. The study was performed in Afyon Kocatepe University Ahmet Necdet Sezer Research and Practice Hospital, Medical Microbiology Laboratory between 1 November 2014 and 30 October 2015. Two hundred and seventyeight clinical specimens accepted for anaerobic culture were enrolled in the study. All the samples were cultivated anaerobically by using Schaedler agar with 5% defibrinated sheep blood and Schaedler broth. The isolated anaerobic gram-negative bacilli were identified by using both the conventional methods and automated identification system (VITEK 2, bioMerieux, France). Antibiotic susceptibility tests were performed with antibiotic concentration gradient method (E-test, bioMerieux, France); against penicillin G, clindamycin, cefoxitin, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem for each isolate. Of the 28 isolated anaerobic gram-negative bacilli; 14 were identified as Bacteroides fragilis group, 9 were Prevotella spp., and 5 were Fusobacterium spp. The highest resistance rate was found against penicillin (78.5%) and resistance rates against clindamycin and cefoxitin were found as 17.8% and 21.4%, respectively. No resistance was found against metronidazole, moxifloxacin, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem and doripenem. As a result, isolation and identification of anaerobic bacteria are difficult, time-consuming and more expensive when compared with the cost of aerobic culture. The rate of anaerobic bacteria isolation may be increased by obtaining the appropriate clinical specimen and appropriate transportation of these specimens. We believe that the data obtained from the study in our center may offer benefits for the follow up and treatment of infections caused by anaerobic bacteria and may contribute to the current literature. Because of high resistance rate detected against penicillin, this antibiotic should not be used as a first choice in empirical treatment. Cefoxitin may be used in empirical antimicrobial treatment of anaerobic gram-negatives; but the rate of antibiotic resistance should be detected for more useful and proper treatment. The prior selection of the most effective antibiotic, may contribute to decrease the rate of high resistance. In our study, no resistance was observed against carbapenem group antibiotics and metronidazole; so these antibiotics should be reserved as treatment options in the future for infections caused by resistant gram-negative anaerobic bacteria.
本研究的目的是鉴定从疑似厌氧菌感染患者获取的各种临床标本中分离出的革兰氏阴性厌氧杆菌,并采用抗生素浓度梯度法确定其抗生素耐药谱。该研究于2014年11月1日至2015年10月31日在阿菲永科泰佩大学艾哈迈德·内吉代特·塞泽尔研究与实践医院医学微生物实验室进行。278份接受厌氧培养的临床标本纳入本研究。所有样本均使用含5%去纤维羊血的 Schaedler琼脂和 Schaedler肉汤进行厌氧培养。采用传统方法和自动化鉴定系统(VITEK 2,法国生物梅里埃公司)对分离出的厌氧革兰氏阴性杆菌进行鉴定。采用抗生素浓度梯度法(E-test,法国生物梅里埃公司)对每种分离菌进行抗生素敏感性试验;检测其对青霉素G、克林霉素、头孢西丁、甲硝唑、莫西沙星、亚胺培南、美罗培南、厄他培南和多利培南的敏感性。在28株分离出的厌氧革兰氏阴性杆菌中,14株鉴定为脆弱拟杆菌群,9株为普雷沃菌属,5株为梭杆菌属。发现对青霉素的耐药率最高(78.5%),对克林霉素和头孢西丁的耐药率分别为17.8%和21.4%。未发现对甲硝唑、莫西沙星、亚胺培南、美罗培南、厄他培南和多利培南耐药。结果表明,与需氧培养相比,厌氧菌的分离和鉴定困难、耗时且成本更高。通过获取合适的临床标本并对这些标本进行适当运送,可提高厌氧菌的分离率。我们认为,从我们中心的研究中获得的数据可能有助于厌氧菌感染的后续治疗,并可能为当前文献做出贡献。由于检测到对青霉素的耐药率较高,该抗生素不应作为经验性治疗的首选。头孢西丁可用于厌氧革兰氏阴性菌的经验性抗菌治疗;但为了更有效和恰当的治疗,应检测抗生素耐药率。预先选择最有效的抗生素,可能有助于降低高耐药率。在我们的研究中,未观察到对碳青霉烯类抗生素和甲硝唑耐药;因此,对于耐药革兰氏阴性厌氧菌引起的感染,这些抗生素在未来应保留作为治疗选择。