Background: ESBL producing bacteria are increasing with an alarming rate with a wide range of infections. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to see the status of ESBL producing bacteria isolated from skin wounds. Methodology: This cross sectional study was conducted in the Department of Microbiology at Mymensingh Medical College, Bangladesh from January 2011 to June 2011 for a period of 6 months. All the patients, at any age with both sexes presented with skin wound infection, were taken as study population. Wound swab was taken from all patients. Specimens were processed and bacteria were isolated and identified according to standard procedure. The ESBL status was confirmed by double disc diffusion test (DDDT) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) by agar dilution method by standard procedure according to Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI). Antimicrobial resistance was done by disc diffusion method. Result: A total number of 84 wound swabs were taken of which the most common ESBL producing bacteria were Esch. coli (61.5%), Proteus species (78.3%) and Klebsiella species (88.9%). All the isolates were sensitive to imipenem and nitrofurantoin followed by amikacin (92.9%). Conclusion: In conclusion, ESBL producing E. coli is the most common bacteria causing skin wound infection followed by Proteus species with a reduced sensitivity towards antibiotics.

Background: The detection of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing (ESBL) bacteria is of importance for infection control and epidemiological surveillance. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare two phenotypic methods for the detection of ESBL-positive Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas species. Methodology: This cross sectional study was carried out in the Department of Microbiology at Mymensingh Medical College, Bangladesh from January 2011 to June 2011. Patients of all ages and genders presented with UTI or wound infection were taken as study population. Gram negative bacilli (GNB) were analyzed by two methods used for routine susceptibility testing which were Disk diffusion methods and MIC reduction methods. Two methods designed for the detection of ESBL production Ceftazidime and Ceftazidime plus Clavulinic acid, (CAZ/CAZC) and Cefotaxime and Cefotaxime plus Clavulinic Acid (CTX/CTXC) were used and the PCR was considered as gold standard for evaluation of the other test methods. Result: A total number of 300 GNB were isolated and identified of which 214(71%) were ESBL positive. For the disk diffusion method, resistant to third generation Cephalosporins were the highest 87.0%, when tested by ceftazidime and by MIC reduction methods were 67%. For the phenotypic confirmatory methods, specificities were 64% by (CAZ/CAZC), 59% by (CTX/CTXC) and by both method 52%. Among the phenotypic confirmatory ESBL positive strains by Genotypic method ESBL positive were 50.46% TEM, 18.69 % SHV and 46.72% CTX-M gene. Conclusion: Two-step strategies using both DDDT phenotypic methods are useful diagnostic tools for the detection of ESBL from the Gram negative bacilli.