Resumen

Background: Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) may not always be detected in routine susceptibility tests. This study reports the performance of the cefepime-clavulanate ESBL Etest for the detection of ESBLs in Enterobacteriaceae, including those producing AmpC enzyme. Methodology: Consecutive non-duplicate isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus mirabilis isolated from bloodstream infections from January to June 2008 were tested for ESBL by both the standard CLSI double-disk diffusion method using ceftazidime and cefotaxime disks and Etests using ceftazidime/ceftazidime-clavulanate, cefotaxime/cefotaxime-clavulanate and cefepime/cefepime-clavulanate gradients. Isolates were also tested for the presence of transferable AmpC beta-lactamase by AmpC disk test and the efficacies of the different Etests in detecting ESBL production were compared. Results: A total of 113 bacterial isolates (61 K. pneumoniae, 50 E. coli, and 2 P. mirabilis) were recovered. Respectively, 42 (37.2%) and 55 (48.7%) isolates were positive for ESBL by the ceftazidime-clavulanate and cefotaxime-clavulanate combined disk tests. The cefepime/cefepime-clavulanate Etest strip detected the maximum number of isolates (70/113, 61.9 %) as ESBL-positive compared to the ceftazidime/ceftazidime-clavulanate and cefotaxime/cefotaxime-clavulanate strips, which detected 57 (50.4%) isolates each as ESBL-positive. All three ESBL Etest strips were equally effective in detecting ESBL in the isolates that were AmpC negative. In the 66 (58.4%) isolates that co-produced AmpC in addition to the ESBL enzymes, cefepime/cefepime-clavulanate Etest strip detected ESBL in an additional 13 (11.4%) isolates as compared to the other ESBL Etest strips. Conclusions: Cefepime-clavulanate ESBL Etest is a suitable substitute to test for ESBL production, especially in organisms producing AmpC beta-lactamases.

Palabras clave: Antimicrobial resistance AmpC beta-lactamase ESBL Etest extended-spectrum beta-lactamases.

2010-05-07   |   741 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 4 Núm.1. Enero 2010 Pags. 24-29. J Infect Developing Countries 2010; 4(1)