Frequency, risk factors, and antibiogram of Acinetobacter species isolated from various clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital in Odisha, India

Abstract

Background:For the past two decades, Acinetobacter spp. have emerged as an important pathogen globally in various infections.Objectives:This study was conducted to determine the frequency, risk factors, and antibiotic resistance pattern of Acinetobacter spp. from various clinical samples.Materials and Methods:This retrospective, hospital record–based, cross-sectional study included a total of 8749 clinical samples collected from patients at a tertiary care hospital in Odisha, India from July 2010 to December 2012. The samples were processed and identified by standard protocol. The Acinetobacter isolates were tested for antibiotic resistance by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method [according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines].Results:From 8749 clinical samples, 4589 (52.5%) yielded significant growth and only 137 (3%, 137/4589) Acinetobacter spp. were isolated. Maximum (56.9%) isolates were obtained from pus/swab, followed by blood (13.1%) and urine (12.4%). Elderly age, being inpatients, longer duration of stay in the hospital, associated co-morbidity, and invasive procedure were found to be significant risk factors in the setup investigated (P is less than 0.05). Out of 137 isolates, 75 (54.7%) were resistant to more than three classes of antibiotics (multidrug resistant) and 8 (5.8%) were resistant to all commonly used antibiotics (pan-drug resistant). Majority of the isolates were sensitive to imipenem, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam, and showed resistance rates of 19%, 22%, and 23%, respectively. All eight pan-drug resistant isolates were 100% sensitive to colistin.Conclusion:This hospital-based epidemiological data will help to implement better infection control strategies and improve the knowledge of antibiotic resistance patterns in our region.

A study of Acinetobacter infections in a tertiary care hospital in Northeast India

“…A study by Dash et al also reported more resistance towards Meropenem (22%) as compared to imipenem (19%). 5 No resistance was seen in Colistin in our study which is similar to the study published by Dash et al and Shareek et al, whereas isolates were sensitive to colistin. 5,19 Out of total isolates 69 (62.1%) were multidrug resistant (MDR) in our study.…”

“…5,6 The higher isolation rates 36 (32.4%) of Acinetobacter spp from the Urine samples are not in agreement with the results reported previously in other studies where higher isolation rates were most often from respiratory samples. 6 According to literature, amongst Acinetobacter spp, commonest species isolated in human clinical specimens is A. baumannii.…”

“…4 In addition to infection among hospitalised patients, community acquired Acinetobacter infection is increasingly reported. 5 An increase in antibiotic resistance among isolates of the organism during recent years has made these infections difficult to treat. 6 Acinetobacter species are becoming increasingly resistant to nearly all routinely prescribed antimicrobial agents, including aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and broadspectrum β-lactams.…”

Study of Acinetobacter Species with Special Reference to Species Differentiation and Metallo-Beta Lactamase Production in a Rural Tertiary Care Hospital

“…The old age of patients is recognized as an independent risk factor of the acquisition of Acinetobacter infection as reported by Uwingabiye et al, (2016) as well as Dash et al, (2013). This observation may be because of, the old age patients are definitely less immunecompetent than the younger ones.…”

“…Therefore the prevalence rate of isolation of Acinetobacter at our rural tertiary care center was 2.18 %. Dash et al, from Odisha reported the prevalence of 3%, while Rit et al, reported it as 4.5% in a tertiary care hospital in West Bengal, India (Dash et al, 2013;Rit, 2012) Higher prevalence rates of 14% and 9.6% were observed by Mostofi et al, in Tehran, and Joshi et al, in Pune respectively (Rit, 2012;Mostofi et al, 2011;Joshi et al, 2006).…”