4.4 Article

Phenotypic detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase among burns patients: First report from Iran

期刊

BURNS
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 174-176

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.02.025

关键词

Klebsiella; Imipenem resistant; KPC; Iran

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran [M/T 90-03-91-15214]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Resistance to antimicrobial agents such as carbapenems among enterobacteriacea has been increasing, especially in Klebsiella pneumonia that produces variety of enzymes including Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC). This study is the first report of its kind investigating the resistance to carbapenems among burns patients in Iran. Method: During a 6-month period, 28 hospitalized burn patients who required to be placed on broad spectrum antibiotics were studied. Isolated species identified by routine biochemical test. Susceptibility testing for these species was performed by recommended the CLSI guidelines method. The tested antibiotics included cefotaxime, cefepime, aztreonam, imipenem, amoxicillin + clavulonic acid, gentamicin, amikacin, tobramycin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and chloramphenicol. For determination of KPC in phenotypical forms, Modified Hodge Test was utilized as per CLSI recommendation. Results: Thirty-five Klebsiella spp. were isolated from 28 hospitalized patients. Nineteen out of 35 Klebsiella isolates were resistant to imipenem and that all of them had positive KPC. Nine of imipenem resistant isolates were also resistant to all tested antibiotics. Mortality rate among patients with positive KPC was 33%. Conclusion: High rate of multi-drug resistant (MDR) strains in isolates with positive KPC is a major challenge in Iran and that it could cause an increase in both mortality and morbidity among burn patients. Thus, appropriate infection control measures and guidelines are needed to prevent such infections among burn patients. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. 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

4.4
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