Prevalence of metallo beta lactamase in clinical isolates of pseudomonas aeruginosa in a tertiary care hospital

Shyamasree Nandy; Ayan Kumar Das; Mridu Dudeja

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20151048

Authors

Shyamasree Nandy Department of Microbiology, HIMSR, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi
Ayan Kumar Das Department of Microbiology, HIMSR, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi
Mridu Dudeja Department of Microbiology, HIMSR, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20151048

Keywords:

Metallo beta lactamase, Pseudomonas, Carbapenemase

Abstract

Background: Increasing Carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an emerging threat and a matter of particular concern. Aim: Our study was conducted to find out the prevalence of Metallo beta lactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and compare various phenotypic MBL detection methods.

Methods:A prospective study was conducted on 86 non duplicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from clinical specimens for a period of 2 year from April 2011 to march 2013. Total 86 isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were included in the study. All clinical samples were processed according to standard microbiological method. The MIC for Imipenem and Meropenem were determined by broth dilution method. As per CLSI any isolate having an MIC of >8µg/ml was considered resistant.42 isolates were both or either resistant to IMP and MRP. These 42 isolates were tested for MBL production by (a) IMP EDTA E test (17 MBL positive isolate detected), (b) IMP & IMP EDTA disc diffusion test (17 MBL positive isolate detected), (c) IMP & EDTA double disc synergy test (14 MBL positive isolate detected).

Results: 48.84% isolates were resistant to Carbapenem and 19.76% isolates were found to be MBL producer. Colistin showed 100% susceptibility in all the MBL positive isolates.

Conclusions:Among the 3 test done IMP & IMP EDTA test is easy to perform, cost effective and as sensitive as E test. Our results strongly suggest that for the MBL isolates should be detected on routine basis and the antibiotic prescribed accordingly.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Watanabe M, Iyobe S, Inoue M, Mitsuhashi S. Transferable imipenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:147-51.

Nordmann P, L. Poirel."Emerging carbapenemases in Gram‐negative aerobes. “Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2002;8(6):321-31.

Lister, Philip D, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND. Antibacterial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical impact and complex regulation of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms." Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2009;22(4):582-610.

Livermore DM. Multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: our worst nightmare? Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2002;34(5):634-40.

Livermore DM. Beta-Lactamases in laboratory and clinical resistance." Clinical microbiology reviews 1995;8(4):557-84.

Poole K. "Multidrug efflux pumps and antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and related organisms." Journal of molecular microbiology and biotechnology 2001;3(2):255-64.

Mesaros N, Nordmann P, Plesiat RD, Van Eldere J, Glupczynski Y, Laethem YV, et al. "Pseudomonas aeruginosa: resistance and therapeutic options at the turn of the new millennium." Clinical microbiology and infection 2007;13(6):560-78.

Walsh, Timothy R., et al. "Metallo-β-lactamases: the quiet before the storm?" Clinical microbiology reviews 18.2 (2005):306-325.

Jovcic B., Lepsanovic Z., Suljagic V., Rackov G., Begovic J., Topisirovic L., & Kojic M.. Emergence of NDM-1 metallo-β-lactamase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Serbia. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 55(8), (2011),3929-3931.

Bailey W. E. &Scott E. G. (1962). Diagnostic microbiology. Diagnostic microbiology.

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 22nd informational supplement (M100–S22), Vol 32, No.3, Jan 2012.

Yong D., Lee K., Yum J. H., Shin H. B., Rossellini G. M., & Chong Y. (2002). Imipenem-EDTA disk method for differentiation of metallo-β-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 40(10), 3798-3801.

Lee K., Lim Y. S., Yong D., Yum J. H., & Chong Y. (2003). Evaluation of the Hodge test and the imipenem-EDTA double-disk synergy test for differentiating metallo-β-lactamase-producing isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. Journal of Clinical Microbiology,41(10),4623-4629.

Gupta V., Singla N., & Chander J. Use of two double disk synergy tests to detect metallo beta lactamases in nonfermenters. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 128(5), 2008).671.

Behera B., Mathur P., Das A., Kapil A., & Sharma V. (2008). An evaluation of four different phenotypic techniques for detection of metallo-β-lactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Indian Journal of medical microbiology, 26(3),233.

Singh SP, Shariff M, Barua T, Thukral SS. Comparative evaluation of phenotypic tests for identification of metallo beta-lactamases producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Indian J Med Res. 2009;129:713-5.

Saha R, Jain S, Kaur IR. Metallo beta-lactamase producing pseudomonas species--a major cause of concern among hospital associated urinary tract infection. Journal of the Indian Medical Association, 2010;108(6):344-8.

Walsh TR, Toleman MA, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Metallo-β-lactamases: the quiet before the storm? Clinical microbiology reviews. 2005;18(2):306-25.