Next Article in Journal
Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter?
Previous Article in Journal
Hip Fractures and Visual Impairment: Is There a Cause–Consequence Mechanism?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 14
10.3390/jcm11143927
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterobacteriaceae in Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Patients in Southern Poland

by
Marta Kłos
1,*,
Estera Jachowicz
2,
Monika Pomorska-Wesołowska
3,
Dorota Romaniszyn
2,
Grzegorz Kandzierski
4 and
Jadwiga Wójkowska-Mach
2
1
Department of Molecular Biology, Faculty of Science and Health, Catholic University of Lublin, 20-708 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, 31-121 Kraków, Poland
3
Department of Microbiology, Analytical and Microbiological Laboratory (KORLAB), 41-700 Ruda Śląska, Poland
4
Department of Pediatric Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(14), 3927; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143927
Submission received: 20 June 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 4 July 2022 / Published: 6 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Infectious Diseases)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to highlight antimicrobial resistance among Enterobacteriaceae isolated from bloodstream infections in hospitals in southern Poland. Materials and Methods: The present study includes laboratory-confirmed secondary bloodstream infections (LC-BSIs), in the years 2015–2018, in hospitalized adult patients (≥18). Episodes of BSIs were defined according to the strictly described guidelines. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed with the automated system and the disc diffusion method. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing Enterobacteriaceae were detected using the double-disc synergy test. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 356 episodes of secondary BSIs in 997 patients aged 21–96 years were documented in a prospective study, including 134 (37.6%) ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Escherichia coli was the predominant pathogen in internal medicine (37.6%) and surgery units (46.8%); in intensive care units (ICUs), Klebsiella pneumoniae was isolated more frequently (33.3%). Enterobacteriaceae were highly resistant to most antimicrobial agents. K. pneumoniae isolates had a higher level of resistance than E. coli, regardless of the unit. Conclusions: The increase in AMR and the widespread distribution of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Polish hospitals can be related to the lack of or inappropriate antibiotic treatment.

1. Introduction

As reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are defined as systemic conditions resulting from an adverse reaction to the presence of an infectious agent(s) or its toxin(s) [1]. Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) refer, for example, to hospital care, long-term care, home care, and ambulatory care [2]. These terms, ‘healthcare-associated infection (HCAI),’ and ‘hospital-acquired infection (HAI),’ are used interchangeably. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), each year in the European Union (EU), approximately 4 million patients acquire a healthcare-associated infection [3].
HAIs, including BSIs, entail intensive antimicrobial treatment that can cause an adverse reaction, including the acquisition of bacterial resistance to antimicrobials. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and bloodstream infections (BSIs) have been an increasing challenge in healthcare due to the deficiency of effective antimicrobials. BSI is termed a potentially life-threatening condition characterized by high morbidity and mortality, with a mortality rate that reaches 40% in ICUs [4,5]. In Poland, the mortality was 20% among patients with BSIs in ICUs [6]. Furthermore, BSIs extend hospitalization time and increase healthcare costs; in Poland, the average hospitalization time in the ICU was up to 34 days [7].
The multidrug-resistance (MDR) phenotype is associated with the production of TEM, SHV, and CTX-M enzymes in Enterobacteriaceae; it has been associated with nosocomial infections [8,9]. Multidrug-resistant strains, inappropriate prophylaxis, and insufficient or delayed antibiotic therapy result in the failure of empiric antimicrobial therapy [10]. The effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered. Although antibiotic prophylaxis is known to be essential in surgical procedures, some mechanisms of AMR are still unknown, and increasing AMR in Enterobacteriaceae makes treatment difficult. To reduce the risk of spreading drug resistance, intensive work is being carried out on the development of standards for the use of antibiotics. The Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) consists of promoting the principles of rational use of antibiotics: the selection of the optimal antibiotic, the appropriate dose and route of administration, and the duration of treatment.
The aim of this study was to highlight the high levels of antimicrobial resistance among Enterobacteriaceae isolated from bloodstream infections in hospitals in southern Poland, with special emphasis on extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study included laboratory-confirmed secondary bloodstream infections (LC-BSIs) that occurred between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018 in hospitalized adult patients (≥18) in southern Poland (13 hospitals). An episode of BSI was defined according to the ECDC guidelines [11,12]. Furthermore, according to the guidelines and the study inclusion criteria of secondary BSIs: (1) a blood culture positive for ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae; (2) the pathogen identified from the blood sample matched the pathogen identified from the site of infection; (3) blood samples were collected from separate venous punctures, avoiding collection through the catheter, in order to reduce the risk of a diagnostic error [1,13]. The patient’s health status was evaluated by the attending physician, based on clinical data, directly in the hospital. If more than one organism was isolated from one patient or blood culture, only the first isolate from one patient was included in the analysis of the same infection case.
Blood cultures were performed in BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F Culture Vials and BACTEC Plus Anaerobic/F Culture Vials (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, MD, USA), interchangeable with BACTEC Lytic/10 Anaerobic Culture Vials (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, MD, USA). The isolates were identified by matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper; Bruker Corporation, MA, USA) according to standard methods [14]. The presence of the bla genes for ESBLs (TEM, SHV, CTX-M) was determined by multiplex PCR using specific primers [15]. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by the disc diffusion method (Oxoid Thermo Scientific, Basingstoke, UK) and with the automated BD PhoenixTM 100 system (Becton Dickinson Company, Sparks, MD, USA) [16]. The NMIC/ID-204 Panels (Becton Dickinson Company, Sparks, MD, USA) were used to determine antimicrobial susceptibility with the BD PhoenixTM 100 automated system according to the manufacturer’s instructions [16]. The results of antibacterial susceptibility testing were interpreted according to breakpoints established by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) in 2022 [17]. In this study, antimicrobial resistance was determined into six categories: aminoglycosides, carbapenems, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, glycopeptides and lipoglycopeptides, and macrolides. Microbes intermediately susceptible to antibiotics were classified as resistant, as only susceptible microbes can be regarded as being able to be managed by means of the respective antibiotic agent [18]. ESBL-producing strains were detected using the double-disc synergy test, according to the procedure of Kaur et al., with cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, and aztreonam placed around the disc with amoxicillin and clavulanic acid [19].

Statistical Analyses

The relationships between the studied groups were tested by Pearson’s chi-square test: if Cochran’s condition was met, but if the condition was not met, Fisher’s exact test was used. The Yates amendment was applied when the observed numbers were <10. It was assumed to be statistically significant if p < 0.05, and the test probability was statistically significant if p < 0.05, and it was assumed that the test probability was highly statistically significant if p < 0.01. The analyses were performed with PQStat Software version 1.8.0.444 (Poland).
Ethic code: The study was approved by the Jagiellonian University Bioethics Committee no. 1072.6120.64.2019, date: 28 March 2019.

3. Results

In total, during the study period 2015–2018, 356 Enterobacterales were isolated. As presented in Table 1, Escherichia coli was most often isolated strain in internal medicine units (140; 37.6%) and surgery units (74; 46.8%). In intensive care units (ICUs), the predominant species was Klebsiella pneumoniae (9; 33.3%). A highly significant association (p < 0.01) in the prevalence of K. pneumoniae in different units was found.
Table 2 shows that half of Klebsiella spp. were extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing, both in the internal medicine and surgical units. The ESBL-positive phenotype was detected in most Enterobacterales (61.5%) from the “Others” group, isolated in internal medicine units. The genus Klebsiella included the species Klebsiella oxytoca and Klebsiella mobilis. In the “Others” group, the species Enterobacter cloacae, Proteus mirabilis, and Citrobacter freundii were identified.
As summarized in Table 3, regardless of unit or antimicrobial agents, K. pneumoniae isolates were more resistant than E. coli. In each of the units studied, high resistance of the strains to ampicillin and ampicillin-sulbactam was observed (up to 100%). Among the high resistance of K. pneumoniae isolates to tested antimicrobials, a high resistance rate was observed for ciprofloxacin (up to 74.1%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (up to 59.2%). The higher susceptibility of Enterobacteriaceae isolates was observed using β-lactamase inhibitors, especially tazobactam and sulbactam (depending on the unit and strains, in the range of 6.4–55.6%). Regardless of the unit, resistance to amikacin was the lowest (up to 40.7%), and resistance to tobramycin was the highest (up to 55.6%). No statistically significant association (p < 0.05) was found with Enterobacteriaceae antimicrobial resistance in dissimilar units.
Overall, 134 (37.6%) episodes of HCA-BSIs caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae were documented during the research: of these, the predominant were CTX-M-producing strains, regardless of the unit. ESBL-producing E. coli and ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae were the most frequently detected regardless of units (in internal medicine units 31.3% and 17.2%, respectively), due to this, these strains were analysed for antimicrobial resistance. ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae were more resistant than non-ESBL Enterobacteriaceae to most antimicrobial categories, including penicillins (up to 100%), cephalosporins (up to 75.0%), fluoroquinolones (up to 83.3%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (up to 75.0%). The highest antimicrobial resistance was reported in ICUs, among ESBL-producing E. coli, reaching 100%. No statistically significant association (p < 0.05) was found between ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae antimicrobial resistance to different antimicrobials in dissimilar units.

4. Discussion

Overall, during the 2015–2018 study period, 557 bacterial strains originating from secondary bloodstream infections were analysed, including 161 (29.0%) Gram-positive cocci, 356 (63.8%) Enterobacterales, and 40 (7.2%) Gram-negative bacilli other than Enterobacterales. The highest percentage of isolated Enterobacteriaceae was Escherichia coli (222; 39.9%), regardless of unit. The results obtained indicate significant participation of Enterobacterales, which represented almost 2/3 of the aetiology of secondary BSIs, which is a very disturbing result and should become the basis for a comprehensive discussion of the condition supervision of infections in Polish hospitals. The results of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program show that after 2005, E. coli was the predominant species isolated from bloodstream infections (BSIs) [20]. In addition to E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus was the second predominant strain, depending on the geographic region, the type of infection, and age [20]. The SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program monitors the predominant bacterial pathogens and the antimicrobial resistance of isolated organisms from patients with various infection types, including BSI [20]. The SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program reports trends in organism distribution and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among BSI isolates submitted to the SENTRY Program [20]. In the years 2013–2016, a particular increase in the percentage of E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae has been observed in BSI episodes in Europe and Asia [21]. Independent research report that in intensive care units (ICUs), Enterobacteriaceae were one of the most often isolated strains [22,23]. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) data for 2014 and 2017, one of the most common isolated strains of ICUs, was Klebsiella spp., which shows a constant trend for the most frequently isolated pathogens of BSIs [24,25].
The main findings obtained in this study are confirmed by the ECDC report published in 2019 on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in hospital BSIs: in Poland, the percentage of E. coli isolates resistant to aminopenicillins is one of the highest in Europe and amounts to 61.6%, as in other countries of southern Europe or western and northern Europe [26]. Ghadiri et al. also confirm the high resistance of E. coli isolates to ampicillin (63.2%) and ciprofloxacin (47.4%) [27]. The EUROBACT International Cohort Study, conducted in 2012, covering 162 ICUs in 24 countries, showed a high percentage (47.8%) of multidrug-resistant microorganisms, including 7.4% E. coli and 11.9% K. pneumoniae [28]. Resistance to aminoglycosides remains a contentious issue, depending on the place of acquisition, Enterobacteriaceae isolates, and antimicrobial agents: as the results show, in internal medicine and ICUs, resistance to amikacin did not exceed 25.0%, while in surgical units it reached even 40.7% (referring to K. pneumoniae). Compared to other aminoglycoside antibiotics, regardless of unit, resistance to tobramycin was highest and reached 55.6% (in ICUs). In surgical units, a different percentage of resistant isolates related to gentamicin have also been reported, although not exceeding 50.0%. According to the ECDC data, high resistance to cephalosporins was observed, particularly among E. coli isolates (17%); however, the percentage of cephalosporins-non-susceptible E. coli was significantly lower than the results obtained in this study (up to 50.0% E. coli, regardless of the unit, referring to cephalosporins without β-lactamase inhibitors) [29]. In relation to K. pneumoniae isolates, Poland has one of the highest antimicrobial resistance results among the data from 33 countries surveyed, referring to fluoroquinolones (61.3%, in this study K. pneumoniae up to 74.1%), aminoglycosides (47.5%, in this study K. pneumoniae up to 55.6%), cephalosporins (58.3%, in this study K. pneumoniae up to 66.7%) [26]. The increase in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of Enterobacteriaceae and the widespread distribution of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Polish hospitals can be related to the lack of or inappropriate antibiotic treatment. Hence, it has been reducing the number of antimicrobial agents to which the pathogen is susceptible and the available treatment options.
A total of 134 extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (37.6%) isolates were enrolled; of these E. coli isolates, 48.5%, and K. pneumoniae isolates 35.8%. Kallel et al. indicate a relatively widespread number of ESBL-producing isolates and a high percentage of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae strains (27.6%) [23]. The occurrence of an ESBL-positive phenotype is associated with nosocomial infections [8,9] but is also related to the multidrug-resistance (MDR) of Enterobacteriaceae [8]. In the years 2012–2014, 15,588 Enterobacteriaceae isolates were tested in hospitals in the USA and 13.7% of them were ESBL-positive, demonstrating the difference between the results obtained in this study [30].

5. Conclusions

Among Enterobacteriaceae isolates, Klebsiella pneumoniae was more resistant than Escherichia coli. Enterobacteriaceae were highly resistant to most antimicrobial categories, including β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing Enterobacteriaceae were detected more frequently in internal medicine units (E. coli 64.6% and K. pneumoniae 47.9%). The high resistances of isolates suggest a problem with choosing the drug for empirical treatment. According to our results, only three antibiotics are likely to be effective in empirical treatment: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoperazone-sulbactam, and amikacin. The high percentage of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and high resistance of the isolated strains suggest inadequate standards for infection control, increased multidrug-resistant microbes, and the need for the implementation and improvement of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program. Periodic training on the above-mentioned issues for healthcare workers may also be irreplaceable.

Author Contributions

J.W.-M. designed and coordinated the study. M.P.-W. carried out the identification of strains. M.K. carried out the study and conducted the literature search. M.K. and D.R. performed the data analysis. M.K. and E.J. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. G.K. and J.W.-M. supervised the collection of study data and the precision of the manuscript. The manuscript was reviewed by all authors. All authors participated in the finalization of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results can be found in the Department of Microbiology of Jagiellonian University, including archived datasets analysed or generated during the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Horan, T.C.; Andrus, M.; Dudeck, M.A. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Haque, M.; Sartelli, M.; McKimm, J.; Bakar, M.A. Health care-associated infections—An overview. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 2321–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Surveillance of Healthcare-Associated Infections in Europe. 2007. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/120215_SUR_HAI_2007.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2022).
  4. Laupland, K.B.; Gregson, D.B.; Zygun, D.A.; Doig, C.J.; Mortis, G.; Church, D.L. Severe bloodstream infections: A population-based assessment. Crit. Care Med. 2004, 32, 992–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Son, J.S.; Song, J.-H.; Ko, K.S.; Yeom, J.S.; Ki, H.K.; Kim, S.-W.; Chang, H.-H.; Ryu, S.Y.; Kim, Y.-S.; Jung, S.-I.; et al. Bloodstream Infections and Clinical Significance of Healthcare associated Bacteremia: A Multicenter Surveillance Study in Korean Hospitals. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2010, 25, 992–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wałaszek, M.; Różańska, A.; Bulanda, M.; Wójkowska-Mach, J.; Polish Society of Hospital Infections Team. Alarming Results of Nosocomial Bloodstream Infections Surveillance in Polish Intensive Care Units. Przegl. Epidemiol. 2018, 72, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Wałaszek, M.; Różańska, A.; Wałaszek, M.Z.; Wójkowska-Mach, J.; Polish Society of Hospital Infections Team. Epidemiology of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia, microbiological diagnostics and the length of antimicrobial treatment in the Polish Intensive Care Units in the years 2013–2015. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Souli, M.; Galani, I.; Giamarellou, H. Emergence of extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in Europe. Euro Surveill 2008, 13, 19045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Paterson, D.L.; Bonomo, R.A. Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases: A Clinical Update. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 18, 657–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zilberberg, M.D.; Nathanson, B.H.; Sulham, K.; Fan, W.; Shorr, A.F. Carbapenem resistance, inappropriate empiric treatment and outcomes among patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae urinary tract infection, pneumonia and sepsis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use in European Acute Care Hospitals; Protocol Version 4.3; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/0512-TED-PPS-HAI-antimicrobial-use-protocol.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2022).
  12. European Surveillance of Healthcare-Associated Infections in Intensive Care Units; HAI-Net ICU Protocol Version 1.02; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2015; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/healthcare-associated-infections-HAI-ICU-protocol.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2022).
  13. Powell, L.R. National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases; Secondary BSI. Attribution: A Tale of Two Scenarios; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/training/2019/secondary-bsi-508.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2022).
  14. Sauer, S.; Freiwald, A.; Maier, T.; Kube, M.; Reinhardt, R.; Kostrzewa, M.; Geider, K. Classification and identification of bacteria by mass spectrometry and computational analysis. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e2843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dallenne, C.; Da Costa, A.; Decre, D.; Favier, C.; Arlet, G. Development of a set of multiplex PCR assays for the detection of genes encoding important β-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. BD Phoenix™ Automated Microbiology System. Laboratory Procedure. Available online: https://legacy.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/clsi/clsi-Phoenix_GramNegative_V5.15_V4.31.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2022).
  17. Clinical Breakpoints—Breakpoints and Guidance; Version 12.0; European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Växjö, Sweden, 2022; Available online: http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ (accessed on 24 March 2022).
  18. Mehl, A.; Åsvold, B.O.; Kümmel, A.; Lydersen, S.; Paulsen, J.; Haugan, I.; Solligård, E.; Damås, J.K.; Harthug, S.; Edna, T.H. Trends in antimicrobial resistance and empiric antibiotic therapy of bloodstream infections at a general hospital in Mid-Norway: A prospective observational study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 116. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaur, J.; Mahajan, G.; Chand, K.; Sheevani Chopra, S. Enhancing Phenotypic Detection of ESBL in AmpC co-producers by using Cefepime and Tazobactam. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016, 10, DC05–DC08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Diekema, D.J.; Hsueh, P.-R.; Mendes, R.E.; Pfaller, M.A.; Rolston, K.V.; Sader, H.; Jones, R.N. The Microbiology of Bloodstream Infection: 20-Year Trends from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e00355–e00419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Wisplinghoff, H.; Bischoff, T.; Tallent, S.M.; Seifert, H.; Wenzel, R.P.; Edmond, M.B. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: Analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2004, 39, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Renaud, B.; Brun-Buisson, C. Outcomes of primary and catheter-related bacteremia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 163, 1584–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kallel, H.; Houcke, S.; Resiere, D.; Roy, M.; Mayence, C.; Mathien, C.; Mootien, J.; Demar, M.; Hommel, D.; Djossou, F. Epidemiology and Prognosis of Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Bloodstream Infection. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Annual Epidemiological Report 2016—Healthcare-Associated Infections Acquired in Intensive Care Units; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Healthcare-Associated Infections Acquired in Intensive Care Units Annual Epidemiological Report for 2017. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/AER_for_2017-HAI.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2022).
  26. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Surveillance Atlas of Infectious Diseases. Available online: https://atlas.ecdc.europa.eu/public/index.aspx?Dataset=27&HealthTopic=4 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  27. Ghadiri, H.; Vaez, H.; Khosravi, S.; Soleymani, E. The Antibiotic Resistance Profiles of Bacterial Strains Isolated from Patients with Hospital-Acquired Bloodstream and Urinary Tract Infections. Crit. Care Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 890797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  28. Tabah, A.; Koulenti, D.; Laupland, K.; Misset, B.; Valles, J.; Bruzzi de Carvalho, F.; Paiva, J.A.; Çakar, N.; Ma, X.; Eggimann, P.; et al. Characteristics and determinants of outcome of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in intensive care units: The EUROBACT International Cohort Study. Intensive Care Med. 2012, 38, 1930–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Healthcare-Associated Infections Acquired in Intensive Care Units. 22 May 2017. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/AER-HCAI_ICU_3_0.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  30. Castanheira, M.; Mendes, R.E.; Jones, R.N.; Sader, H.S. Changes in the frequencies of beta-lactamase genes among Enterobacteriaceae isolates in U.S. hospitals, 2012 to 2014: Activity of ceftazidime-avibactam tested against beta-lactamase-producing isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4770–4777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Aetiology of BSI episodes.
Table 1. Aetiology of BSI episodes.
Type of Hospital Unit
Internal Medicine UnitsSurgery UnitsICUsOverall
non-Enterobacterales n = 161Gram-positive cocci 161 (29.0%)
Staphylococcus aureus100 (26.9%)12 (7.6%)5 (18.5%)117 (21.0%)
Enterococcus faecalis17 (4.6%)3 (1.9%)2 (7.4%)22 (3.9%)
Enterococcus faecium3 (0.8%)1 (0.6%)04 (0.7%)
Streptococcus agalactiae2 (0.5%)002 (0.3%)
Group G Streptococci1 (0.3%)2 (1.3%)03 (0.5%)
Streptococcus constellatus1 (0.3%)001 (0.2%)
Streptococcus pyogenes1 (0.3%)01 (3.7%)2 (0.3%)
Coagulase-negative staphylococci8 (2.1%)2 (1.3%)010 (1.8%)
Enterobacteralesn = 356Gram-negative bacilli 356 (63.8%)
Escherichia coli140 (37.6%)74 (46.8%)8 (29.6%)222 (39.9%)
Citrobacter koseri1 (0.3%)001 (0.2%)
Citrobacter freundii01 (0.6%)01 (0.2%)
Citrobacter braakii1 (0.3%)001 (0.2%)
Enterobacter cloacae10 (2.7%)3 (1.9%)013 (2.3%)
Klebsiella pneumoniae44 (11.8%)27 (17.1%)9 (33.3%)80 (14.4%)
Klebsiella oxytoca6 (1.6%)5 (3.2%)011 (2.0%)
Klebsiella mobilis1 (0.3%)1 (0.6%)02 (0.3%)
Salmonella enteritidis1 (0.3%)001 (0.2%)
Serratia marcescens1 (0.3%)1 (0.6%)02 (0.3%)
Morganella morganii3 (0.8%)003 (0.5%)
Proteus mirabilis9 (2.4%)10 (6.3%)019 (3.4%)
Other n = 40Gram-negative bacilli; other 40 (7.2%)
Acinetobacter baumanii9 (2.4%)01 (3.7%)10 (1.8%)
Acinetobacter Iwoffii1 (0.3%)001 (0.2%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa10 (2.7%)16 (10.1%)1 (3.7%)27 (4.8%)
Other2 (0.5%)002 (0.3%)
Overall372 (100%)158 (100%)27 (100%)557 (100%)
Table 2. Prevalence of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales in BSI episodes according to the place of acquisition.
Table 2. Prevalence of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales in BSI episodes according to the place of acquisition.
Type of Hospital Unit
ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales n = 134Internal Medicine UnitsSurgery UnitsICUsOverall
Escherichia colin = 6542 (64.6%)19 (29.2%)4 (6.2%)65 (48.5%)
Klebsiellapneumoniae n = 4823 (47.9%)18 (37.5%)7 (14.6%)48 (35.8%)
Klebsiellaspp. n = 84 (50.0%)4 (50.0%)08 (6.0%)
Others n = 138 (61.5%)5 (38.5%)013 (9.7%)
Overall77 (57.5%)46 (34.3%)11 (8.2%)134 (100%)
Legend. ‘Others’ included the species Enterobacter cloacae, Proteus mirabilis, and Citrobacter freundii.
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance of Enterobacteriaceae isolated in hospital units.
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance of Enterobacteriaceae isolated in hospital units.
Internal Medicine Units n = 184Surgery Units n = 101ICUs n = 17
Antimicrobial CategoryAntimicrobial AgentE. coli n = 140 (76.1%)K. pneumoniaen = 44 (23.9%)E. coli n = 74 (73.3%)K. pneumoniae n = 27 (26.7%)E. coli n = 8 (47.1%)K. pneumoniae n = 9 (52.9%)
PenicillinsAmpicillin133 (95.0%)43 (97.7%)73 (98.6%)27 (100%)8 (100%)9 (100%)
Ampicillin-sulbactam132 (94.3%)40 (90.9%)73 (97.2%)27 (100%)8 (100%)9 (100%)
Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid72 (52.1%)24 (54.5%)35 (45.9%)18 (66.7%)5 (62.5%)6 (66.7%)
Piperacillin-tazobactam24 (17.1%)15 (34.1%)10 (13.5%)9 (33.3%)1 (12.5%)5 (55.6%)
CephalosporinsCefuroxime56 (40.0%)20 (45.4%)29 (39.1%)13 (48.1%)4 (50.0%)6 (66.7%)
Ceftazidime52 (37.1%)19 (43.2%)29 (39.1%)12 (44.4%)4 (50.0%)6 (66.7%)
Cefotaxime53 (37.8%)19 (43.2%)28 (37.8%)11 (40.7%)4 (50.0%)6 (66.7%)
Cefepime52 (37.1%)16 (36.4%)23 (29.7%)14 (51.8%)3 (37.5%)4 (44.4%)
Cefoperazone-sulbactam9 (6.4%)6 (13.6%)7 (8.1%)5 (18.5%)2 (25.0%)1 (11.1%)
FluoroquinolonesCiprofloxacin80 (57.1%)25 (56.8%)36 (48.6%)20 (74.1%)6 (75.0%)6 (66.7%)
AminoglycosidesGentamicin45 (32.1%)15 (34.1%)19 (25.6%)6 (22.2%)4 (50.0%)4 (44.4%)
Amikacin19 (13.6%)11 (25.0%)11 (14.8%)11 (40.7%)2 (25.0%)1 (11.1%)
Tobramycin56 (40.0%)20 (45.4%)24 (32.4%)15 (55.5%)4 (50.0%)5 (55.6%)
OthersTrimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole66 (47.1%)22 (50.0%)37 (50.0%)16 (59.2%)4 (50.0%)4 (55.6%)
ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae n = 134 (37.6%)42 (31.3%)23 (17.2%)19 (14.2%)18 (13.4%)4 (3.0%)7 (5.2%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kłos, M.; Jachowicz, E.; Pomorska-Wesołowska, M.; Romaniszyn, D.; Kandzierski, G.; Wójkowska-Mach, J. Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterobacteriaceae in Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Patients in Southern Poland. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3927. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143927

AMA Style

Kłos M, Jachowicz E, Pomorska-Wesołowska M, Romaniszyn D, Kandzierski G, Wójkowska-Mach J. Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterobacteriaceae in Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Patients in Southern Poland. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(14):3927. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143927

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kłos, Marta, Estera Jachowicz, Monika Pomorska-Wesołowska, Dorota Romaniszyn, Grzegorz Kandzierski, and Jadwiga Wójkowska-Mach. 2022. "Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterobacteriaceae in Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Patients in Southern Poland" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 14: 3927. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143927

APA Style

Kłos, M., Jachowicz, E., Pomorska-Wesołowska, M., Romaniszyn, D., Kandzierski, G., & Wójkowska-Mach, J. (2022). Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterobacteriaceae in Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Patients in Southern Poland. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(14), 3927. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11143927

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop