Análisis retrospectivo de agentes bacterianos y patrones de susceptibilidad antibiótica en casos de infecciones del tracto urinario en caninos domésticos (2012-2017)

Abstract

El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo describir y analizar los resultados de los aislados bacterianos y sus antibiogramas en pacientes caninos con diagnóstico de infección del tracto urinario, que fueron atendidos en la Clínica de Animales Menores de la Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos entre 2012 y 2017. Se identificaron 97 historias clínicas de pacientes que contaban con exámenes de urocultivos y antibiogramas. Los agentes bacterianos aislados fueron Escherichia coli (36.9%), Staphylococcus sp (28.7%), Proteus sp (27.9%), Pseudomonas sp (3.3%), Klebsiella sp (1.6%), Streptococcus sp (0.8%) y Citrobacter sp (0.8%). Estos evidenciaron una alta resistencia antibiótica debido posiblemente al uso inadecuado de los antibióticos en el medio, por lo que no permite recomendar un tratamiento inicial seguro en pacientes caninos con diagnóstico presuntivo de esta enfermedad.

Antibiotic susceptibility among non-clinical Escherichia coli as a marker of antibiotic pressure in Peru (2009–2019): one health approach

“…Excluding the article of Kalter et al [52], in general, the levels of resistance detected ranged from 25% to 91.7%. Thus, as described in E. coli from other sources, resistance to quinolones was high, with a maximum of 91.7% of nalidixic acid resistance reported by García et al [70]. Along the same line, levels of resistance of up to 75% to tetracyclines (oxytetracycline) or between 50% and 100% for ancient penicillins and first-generation cephalosporins were reported.…”

“…Neither susceptibility to ceftazidime, cefotaxime or cefepime, nor data about ESBLs or pAmpC was available. Nevertheless, 2 of the studies described levels of intermediate or resistance of 33.3% and 45.2% to cefotaxime [69,70], suggesting the presence of these enzymes.…”

“…Four of the studies reported high levels of AMR [43,69,70,71], with the remaining study of samples collected prior to 2009, described 13.5% of resistance to ampicillin as the highest value [52]. Intermediate isolates were especially frequent in the study by Vega et al [69], with no specific reason to explain this difference, other than the above-commented possible misuse of antibacterial agents or higher exposure to environmental pollution.…”

“…Five studies reported data about AMR in E. coli recovered from pets. Of this, four were focused on dogs [43,69,70,71], while the remaining study considered a diversity of animals, including pets such as dogs, and also ducks and guinea pigs, which are consumed, or others including donkeys used in the agrarian setting [52]. Three of these studies were developed in Lima [43,69,70], one in Cajamarca (Northern Peru) [71], and the remaining study tested samples from 4 Peruvian regions, including Lima [52].…”

“…Of this, four were focused on dogs [43,69,70,71], while the remaining study considered a diversity of animals, including pets such as dogs, and also ducks and guinea pigs, which are consumed, or others including donkeys used in the agrarian setting [52]. Three of these studies were developed in Lima [43,69,70], one in Cajamarca (Northern Peru) [71], and the remaining study tested samples from 4 Peruvian regions, including Lima [52]. As with E. coli of other origins, the number and type of antibiotics tested varied among the different studies, with AMR data of a total of 22 different antibacterial agents (Table 6).…”