4.3 Article

Carbapenem susceptibility among Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter cloacae isolates obtained from patients in intensive care units in Taiwan in 2005, 2007, and 2009

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 81, Issue 4, Pages 290-295

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.09.027

Keywords

Carbapenem; Non-susceptibility; Enterobacteriaceae; Intensive care unit; Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the evolutionary trends in non-susceptibility of carbapenems against the isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter cloacae from patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) of major teaching hospitals throughout Taiwan during 2005-2009, we applied the breakpoints of MICs recommended by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing in 2013. Escalations in imipenem MIC levels for overall E. coli and E. cloacae isolates and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing K. pneumoniae isolates were noted during this period. The overall MIC levels against imipenem and meropenem for subgroups of ESBL producers of 3 Enterobacteriaceae species were significantly higher than those of respective overall groups in 2007 and 2009. Compared with meropenem, we found that significant evidence of imipenem MIC creep and evidence of extraordinarily high rates of non-susceptibility to ertapenem among isolates of 3 species in 2009 existed. The prominent rises in rates of ertapenem non-susceptibility for ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae during 2005-2009 and rate of ESBL positivity for E. cloacae between 4 years were notably found. Based on our findings, ertapenem should be used cautiously in management of the ICU infections caused by these potentially ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates in Taiwan. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available