4.5 Article

A 16-year retrospective surveillance report on the pathogenic features and antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from FAHJU in Guangzhou representative of Southern China

期刊

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 37-41

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.06.018

关键词

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Resistance; Antimicrobial

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD04012021]
  2. Guangdong Special Support Program [2016TQ03N682]
  3. Pearl River SAMP
  4. T Nova Program of Guangzhou [201710010061]
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31401660]
  6. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province
  7. National Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Funding [201459]
  8. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017ZD092]
  9. State Key Laboratory of Biological Fermentation Engineering of Beer [K2017001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a major pathogen responsible for nosocomial infections. A 16-year retrospective report from 2000 to 2015 was conducted to assess the antimicrobial resistance of P. aeruginosa in Southern China. A total of 1387 P. aeruginosa were collected from inpatients and outpatients. Susceptibility testing results were interpreted according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2015). Piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, aminoglycosides and carbapenems remained to be active against P. aeruginosa, with resistance rates ranging from 5.6% to 29.7%. Generally, ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, ceftriaxone and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole nearly lost the effect on P. aeruginosa, as the resistance rates increase up to 90%. Notably, sputum and blood specimen showed higher resistance rates than other sources in carbapenems, suggesting more caution should be paid on the choice of antibiotic against infections associated with respiratory tract. (c) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据