Journals / Journal of Urological Surgery / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Trends and Risk Factors for Ciprofloxacin Resistance and Extendedspectrum Beta-lactamase Production in Uropathogens from Urology and Non-urology Outpatients

Pages
135–141
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, resistance to ciprofloxacin was found in 16.3% of the patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to identify the patterns and temporal changes of ciprofloxacin resistance and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase(ESBL) production in uropathogenic isolates obtained from urology and non-urology outpatients.Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, electronic data of urine culture and antimicrobial susceptibility test results of samplescollected in urology and non-urology outpatient departments from 2008 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed to identify correlations betweenbasic demographic features and clinical settings.Results: Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most prevalent (70%) uropathogenic isolate in a cohort of 7.973 patients consisting of 82.8% women,70.7% adults and 15.7% urology outpatients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Overall, resistance to ciprofloxacin was found in 16.3% of the patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Empirical antibacterial therapy for urological infections in the outpatient setting should be conductedbased on patient risk profiles and contemporary local resistance data.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to identify the patterns and temporal changes of ciprofloxacin resistance and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase(ESBL) production in uropathogenic isolates obtained from urology and non-urology outpatients.Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, electronic data of urine culture and antimicrobial susceptibility test results of samplescollected in urology and non-urology outpatient departments from 2008 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed to identify correlations betweenbasic demographic features and clinical settings.Results: Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most prevalent (70%) uropathogenic isolate in a cohort of 7.973 patients consisting of 82.8% women,70.7% adults and 15.7% urology outpatients. Overall, resistance to ciprofloxacin was found in 16.3% of the patients. Ciprofloxacin resistance wasassociated with being male and old, observed more frequently in urology outpatients, detected in 19.2% of E. coli isolates and increased to 54.5%among ESBL-producing bacterial strains (p 10% and peaked in 2015 (20.2%, p<0.001). However, in 2016, the rate of ESBL production andciprofloxacin resistance started to decline, displaying significance only regarding the latter (p<0.05).Conclusion: Empirical ciprofloxacin treatment of community-acquired urinary tract infections carries a higher risk of an unsuccessful outcomein male, geriatric and urology outpatients. Empirical antibacterial therapy for urological infections in the outpatient setting should be conductedbased on patient risk profiles and contemporary local resistance data.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZVEREN, B., NARTER, K. F., TÜRKERİ, L., ŞAHİN, A. (2021). Trends and Risk Factors for Ciprofloxacin Resistance and Extendedspectrum Beta-lactamase Production in Uropathogens from Urology and Non-urology Outpatients. Journal of Urological Surgery, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 135–141. https://ajindex.com/articles/347531

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Naber KG, Bergman B, Bishop MC, Bjerklund-Johansen TE, Botto H, Lobel B, Jinenez Cruz F, Selvaggi FP; Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Working Group of the Health Care Office (HCO) of the European Association of Urology (EAU). EAU guidelines for the management of urinary and male genital tract infections. Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Working Group of the Health Care Office (HCO) of the European Association of Urology (EAU). Eur Urol 2001;40:576-588
  2. Morgan DJ, Okeke IN, Laxminarayan R, Perencevich EN, Weisenberg S. Nonprescription antimicrobial use worldwide: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:692-701
  3. Mazzariol A, Bazaj A, Cornaglia G. Multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria causing urinary tract infections: a review. J Chemother 2017;29(Suppl 1):2-9
  4. Dalhoff A. Global fluoroquinolone resistance epidemiology and implictions for clinical use. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis 2012;2012:976273
  5. Fasugba O, Gardner A, Mitchell BG, Mnatzaganian G. Ciprofloxacin resistance in community- and hospital-acquired Escherichia coli urinary tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:545
  6. Karlowsky JA, Lagacé-Wiens PR, Simner PJ, DeCorby MR, Adam HJ, Walkty A, Hoban DJ, Zhanel GG. Antimicrobial resistance in urinary tract pathogens in Canada from 2007 to 2009: CANWARD surveillance study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:3169-3175
  7. Pitout JD, Nordmann P, Laupland KB, Poirel L. Emergence of Enterobacteriaceae producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) in the community. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56:52-59
  8. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests; Approved standard-Ninth edition. CLSI document M2-A9. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA: 2006
  9. Kahlmeter G, Poulsen HO. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli from community-acquired urinary tract infections in Europe: the ECO·SENS study revisited. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012;39:45-51
  10. Naber KG, Schito G, Botto H, Palou J, Mazzei T. Surveillance study in Europe and Brazil on clinical aspects and Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology in Females with Cystitis (ARESC): implications for empiric therapy. Eur Urol 2008;54:1164-1175
  11. Sanchez GV, Master RN, Karlowsky JA, Bordon JM. In vitro antimicrobial resistance of urinary Escherichia coli isolates among U.S. outpatients from 2000 to 2010. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:2181-2183