Comparison of in-vitro Antibiotic Susceptibility of Ciprofloxacin, Cefotaxime, Ceftazidime and Cefepime against Gram Negative Bacilli Infections - A Study from Tertiary Care Centre

.. Vishwajith
{"title":"Comparison of in-vitro Antibiotic Susceptibility of Ciprofloxacin, Cefotaxime, Ceftazidime and Cefepime against Gram Negative Bacilli Infections - A Study from Tertiary Care Centre","authors":".. Vishwajith","doi":"10.46347/jmsh.v9i1.22.369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Infections from gram negative bacilli is a challenge for clinicians and laboratory personnel. Treatment of these infections remained as an area of concern. Both fluroquinolones and cephalosporins are most common choice of antibiotics. Despite Cephalosporins, being drug of choice they are expensive also showed many adverse reactions. This study, compares and reevaluates the susceptibility of gram negative bacteria to fluroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) compared to cephalosporins. Method: Various samples(pus, sputum, urine, blood and bodyfluids) were processed according to standard protocols. Antibiotic done susceptibility by using Kirby-baur disc diffusion method. ESBL and Amp C producers were identified using CLSI guidelines. Result: Among 400 isolates, majority were from pus followed by urine, sputum. The most common organism isolated was Klebsiella spp, (33.25%) Escherichia coli (29.5%), Pseudomonas spp (27.25%), Enterobacter spp (6.25%), Citrobacter 5 (1.25%), and Acinetobacter spp (2.5%). Isolates showed 20-80% susceptibility to ciprofloxacin, 30-60% to third and fourth generation cephalosporins. Klebsiella and Pseudomonas showed 64% and 31% susceptibility to ciprofloxacin. Acinetobacter spp showed 30% susceptibility to cefipime and 20% to ciprofloxacin. 34 isolates were ESBL 18 were AmpC producers, of which 15(44%) ESBL and 7(38%) of AmpC producers were ciprofloxacin susceptible. Conclusion: Ciprofloxacin was found to be more effective than the fourth generation cephalosporin (cefepime) against gram negative bacilli. Ciprofloxacin can be considered for treatment as it is more active and cost effective when compared to cephalosporins. Keywords: Fluroquinolones, Cephalosporins, Multidrug resistant, ESBL, Amp C","PeriodicalId":33653,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Sciences and Health","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Sciences and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46347/jmsh.v9i1.22.369","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Infections from gram negative bacilli is a challenge for clinicians and laboratory personnel. Treatment of these infections remained as an area of concern. Both fluroquinolones and cephalosporins are most common choice of antibiotics. Despite Cephalosporins, being drug of choice they are expensive also showed many adverse reactions. This study, compares and reevaluates the susceptibility of gram negative bacteria to fluroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) compared to cephalosporins. Method: Various samples(pus, sputum, urine, blood and bodyfluids) were processed according to standard protocols. Antibiotic done susceptibility by using Kirby-baur disc diffusion method. ESBL and Amp C producers were identified using CLSI guidelines. Result: Among 400 isolates, majority were from pus followed by urine, sputum. The most common organism isolated was Klebsiella spp, (33.25%) Escherichia coli (29.5%), Pseudomonas spp (27.25%), Enterobacter spp (6.25%), Citrobacter 5 (1.25%), and Acinetobacter spp (2.5%). Isolates showed 20-80% susceptibility to ciprofloxacin, 30-60% to third and fourth generation cephalosporins. Klebsiella and Pseudomonas showed 64% and 31% susceptibility to ciprofloxacin. Acinetobacter spp showed 30% susceptibility to cefipime and 20% to ciprofloxacin. 34 isolates were ESBL 18 were AmpC producers, of which 15(44%) ESBL and 7(38%) of AmpC producers were ciprofloxacin susceptible. Conclusion: Ciprofloxacin was found to be more effective than the fourth generation cephalosporin (cefepime) against gram negative bacilli. Ciprofloxacin can be considered for treatment as it is more active and cost effective when compared to cephalosporins. Keywords: Fluroquinolones, Cephalosporins, Multidrug resistant, ESBL, Amp C
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
环丙沙星、头孢噻肟、头孢他啶和头孢吡肟对革兰氏阴性杆菌感染的体外耐药性比较——来自三级医疗中心的研究
革兰氏阴性杆菌感染是临床医生和实验室人员面临的挑战。这些感染的治疗仍然是一个令人关切的领域。氟喹诺酮类药物和头孢菌素是最常用的抗生素。尽管头孢菌素是首选药物,但它们价格昂贵,也显示出许多不良反应。本研究比较并重新评估革兰氏阴性菌对氟喹诺酮类药物(环丙沙星)与头孢菌素的敏感性。方法:按标准方案处理各类标本(脓、痰、尿、血、体液)。采用Kirby-baur圆盘扩散法对抗生素进行药敏试验。使用CLSI指南确定ESBL和Amp C生产者。结果:400株分离菌中以脓菌为主,其次为尿、痰。最常见的病原菌为克雷伯氏菌(33.25%)、大肠杆菌(29.5%)、假单胞菌(27.25%)、肠杆菌(6.25%)、柠檬酸杆菌5(1.25%)和不动杆菌(2.5%)。分离株对环丙沙星敏感性20 ~ 80%,对第三代和第四代头孢菌素敏感性30 ~ 60%。克雷伯菌和假单胞菌对环丙沙星的敏感性分别为64%和31%。不动杆菌对头孢吡肟和环丙沙星的敏感性分别为30%和20%。ESBL 34株,AmpC产菌18株,其中15株(44%)和7株(38%)对环丙沙星敏感。结论:环丙沙星对革兰阴性杆菌的治疗效果优于第四代头孢菌素(头孢吡肟)。环丙沙星可以考虑用于治疗,因为它比头孢菌素更有效,成本效益更高。关键词:氟喹诺酮类,头孢菌素类,多重耐药,ESBL, Amp
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 Vaccination-Associated Spontaneous Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Syndrome A Cross-sectional Observational Study of the Etio-pathology, Socioeconomic Distribution and Clinical Pictures of Ectopic Pregnancy in a Tertiary Medical College and Hospital in Bankura, West Bengal, India Pattern of Thyroid Dysfunction in Type II Diabetes Mellitus Patients in a Tertiary Care Center: A Cross-Sectional Study Clinical Profile of Anterior Uveitis in Tertiary Eye Care Center Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Intraperitoneal Instillation of Bupivacaine after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy – A Randomized Control Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1