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

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

Bacterial species	Resistant isolates n	Phenotypic test^a n (%)		Carbapenemase genes^b n (%)		Correlation with carbapenemase	ESBL genes^c n (%)		Correlation with ESBL
Bacterial species	Resistant isolates n	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 GNB^d	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

^aPhenotypic test include: EDTA, Borinic Acid and Modified Hodge Test
^bCarbapenemase genes include: NDM, VIM, IMP and OXA-48
^cESBL genes include: CTX-M, SHV, and TEM
^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)

ISSN: 1471-2180