Surveillance of <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> in Intensive Care Units: Clusters of Nosocomial Cross-Infection and Encounter of a Multiple-Antibiotic Resistant Strain

Abstract

Serogrouping (determination of O antigens) and bacteriocin typing (based on susceptibility to one or more of 18 bacteriocins) were employed to survey 210 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from 201 patients in 8 intensive care units (ICU) during an observation period of 18 months. Eighty-eight isolates (41.9%) were nonserogroupable (NT); most common were serogroups O1, O9, O11, and O3. All except 5 isolates (97.6%) were bacteriocin-typable. However, phenotypic variation of bacteriocin susceptibility, in particular the receptor for bacteriocin No. 13, rendered this typing method presumptive as well. Bacteriocin susceptibility profiles were not predictive of serogroup and vice versa. Workup of 19 isolates from 9 patients disclosed phenotypic variation of antibiotic susceptibility in 3 patients, superinfection by a different strain in 4 patients, and persistence (3 months) of the same strain in 2 patients, respectively. Serotyping and bacteriocin susceptibility test data revealed 15 clusters of putative cross-infection of 2 patients each, 8 clusters involving 3 patients each, one outbreak (serogroup NT, bacteriocin profile 777736) involving 4 patients in the pediatric ICU, one outbreak due to a multiple-antibiotic resistant (MAR) strain in the surgical ICU (4 patients, serogroup O12, bacteriocin profile 30400), and two putative outbreaks in the pneumonology ICU involving 6 patients (serogroup NT, bacteriocin profile 777726) and 9 patients (serogroup NT, bacteriocin profile 777736). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) macrorestriction analysis (SpeI, XbaI) confirmed the pediatric and surgical ICU strains as singular strains. However, the two putative outbreaks in the pneumonology ICU were due to one particular strain which had infected 13 of the 15 patients as determined with the PFGE genotypic method. Isolates comprising the MAR strain of P. aeruginosa were susceptible only to amikacin, fosfomycin, and polymyxin B; the isolates varied in susceptibility to aztreonam and ceftazidime. This MAR strain was susceptible to the bactericidal activity of 65 vol% of fresh defibrinated human blood from donors B, L, and T. Either amikacin (16 µg/ml) or fosfomycin (8 µg/ml) plus blood and amikacin (8 µg/ml) combined with fosfomycin (8 µg/ml) with and without blood consistently killed isolates of the MAR strain, which thus was amenable to antibiotic therapy.

Dynamics of a Nosocomial Outbreak of Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Producing the PER-1 Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase

“…The clinical relevance of multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa has recently been stressed by reports of nosocomial infections and outbreaks in several countries (1,22,32). Our report, together with more limited observations from Belgium (6), indicates that the bla PER-1 gene and associated resistance determinants may become an emerging therapeutic problem in Europe.…”

“…Southern blot hybridization was carried out using nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell). The probe used in filter hybridization experiments was a PCR-generated amplicon comprising the entire bla PER-1 open reading frame (19) labeled with 32 P by the random priming technique (24). PCR amplification of bla PER alleles was performed as described previously (24) on crude DNA extracts (prepared by boiling cells for 10 min in distilled water).…”

Fosfomycin for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli: a systematic review of microbiological, animal and clinical studies

“…Eleven studies included non-fermenting Gram-negative isolates originating from France [9,10,12,15,20,[23][24][25][26]28,29], three studies included isolates originating from Japan [11,17,18], two from Italy [19,30] and one each from Thailand [16], Taiwan [14], Greece [8], Spain [27], the UK [22], Germany [21] and Bulgaria [13]. Fifteen of the twenty-three studies reported on the site of isolation of the isolates examined [9,10,12,13,15,[17][18][19][20][21]23,25,26,29,30].…”

Typing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from hospitalized patients: a comparison of susceptibility and biochemical profiles with genotype

“…Although susceptibility tests provide profiles that are used in infection control, in most cases these data cannot confirm clusters of nosocomial cross-infection or distinguish unrelated infections (5,(7)(8)(9), especially when multiresistant strains are analyzed (6,10). However, quantitative analysis of antibiograms by comparing disk zone sizes has been considered useful for nosocomial infection control in a few situations (11).…”