Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison between phenotypic and genotypic results of carbapenem resistance among different GNB strains

From: Detection and characterization of carbapenem resistant Gram‐negative bacilli isolates recovered from hospitalized patients at Soba University Hospital, Sudan

Bacterial species Resistant isolates
n
Phenotypic testa
n (%)
Carbapenemase genesb
n (%)
Correlation with carbapenemase ESBL genesc
n (%)
Correlation with ESBL
positive negative positive negative p-value positive negative p-value
K. pneumoniae 82 71 (86.6) 11(13.4) 63 (76.8) 19 (23.2) 0.0000031 72 (87.8) 10 (12.2) 0.017
E.coli 28 26 (92.8) 2 (7.2) 12 (42.8) 16 (57.2) 0.00079 19 (67.8) 9 (32.2) 0.123
P. aeruginosa 45 33 (73) 12 (27) 19 (42) 26 (58) 0.0015 39 (86.6) 6 (13.4) 0.038
A. baumannii 36 30 (83.3) 6 (16.7) 18 (50) 18 (50) 0.022 31 (86) 5 (14) 0.14
Other GNBd 15 11 (73) 4 (27) 9 (60) 6 (40) 0.055 15 (100) 0 (0) 0.08
Total 206 171 (83) 35 (17) 121(58.7) 85 (41.3) 0.0000001 176 (85.4) 30 (14.6) 0.01
  1. aPhenotypic test include: EDTA, Borinic Acid and Modified Hodge Test
  2. bCarbapenemase genes include: NDM, VIM, IMP and OXA-48
  3. cESBL genes include: CTX-M, SHV, and TEM
  4. dOther GNB include: Citrobacter species (3), Burkholderia spp. (2), Enterobacter Spp.(2), Serratia species (1), Proteus spp. (2), Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (3), Vibrio vurneficus (1), and Morganella morganii (1)