Skip to main content
Download PDF

Resistance pattern of isolated microorganisms from 783 clinical specimen cultures in patients admitted to Yasuj Educational Hospitals, Iran

BMC Microbiology volume 23, Article number: 205 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Infectious diseases are still one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in resource-limited settings. Serious infection caused mostly by gram-negative pathogens causes significant morbidity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antimicrobial resistance kills over 700,000 people worldwide. Antibiotic resistance is on the rise, and as a consequence, serious public health issues are arising. The present study investigated isolated clinical samples from Yasuj teaching hospitals to determine the antimicrobial resistance profile to various antibiotics.

Materials and methods

Microbial isolates regarding cultures from urine, blood, wound, abdominal tap, throat, stool, cerebrospinal fluid, endotracheal tube, sputum, skin lesion, nasal, and mouth secretion were collected from patients admitted to hospitals affiliated with Yasuj teaching hospitals. Antibiotic susceptibility profiles were determined by using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method. Data were tabulated and analyzed with SPSS version 26.0.

Results

A total of 783 samples were evaluated in our study, with an average of 30.6 years and 54.5% female patients. Most of the bacterial isolates were gram-negative (64.2%). The majority of cultures were Escherichia coli (49.9%), mainly among urine samples (64.2%). The frequency distribution of norfloxacin antibiotic resistance was more common in internal medicine (66.7%), infectious (63.6%), and emergency wards (58.8%). The frequency distribution of penicillin antibiotic resistance was statistically significant in different wards. All cases of oxacillin were resistant.

Conclusion

Our data showed a high level of antibiotic resistance among bacterial isolates in our center. Considering widespread empirical antibiotic therapy in Iran, the rate of increasing resistance to common antibiotics prescribed for ambulatory and hospitalized patients is concerning. We recommend providing more strict guidelines and policies to control the overuse and overprescription of antimicrobials by health policy-making organizations.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Infectious diseases are still one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in resource-limited settings, but epidemiological data on causative pathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) distribution are scarce [1]. Serious infection caused mostly by gram-negative pathogens causes significant morbidity, and emerging multidrug resistance patterns increase morbidity and mortality even further, especially in critically ill patients [2,3,4]. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antimicrobial resistance kills over 700,000 people worldwide each year, with that figure expected to rise to 10 million by 2050 [5]. Physicians are increasingly challenged to provide their patients with effective antibiotic regimens that do not result in further drug resistance. Antibiotic resistance is on the rise, and as a consequence, serious public health issues are arising [6, 7]. New antimicrobial pharmaceutical investigations are desperately needed and are a primary goal. Updating knowledge on common antimicrobial-resistant pathogens’ occurrence and resistance may help establish better antibiotic use in outpatient and inpatient settings. In the present study, clinical samples isolated from Yasuj teaching hospitals were investigated to determine the antimicrobial resistance profile to various antibiotics.

Method

In this multicentric, cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study, bacterial isolates were identified using phenotypic methods including: observation of growth and colony morphology on various media and analysis of biochemical reactions [8]. All positive cultures of clinical samples reported in teaching hospitals affiliated with Yasuj University of Medical Science during a one-year period (2017–2018) were included. After obtaining the approval of the ethics committee, required information regarding positive blood culture samples were drawn from the referrals to the laboratories of Imam Sajjad and Shahid Beheshti hospitals. All isolates’ antibiotic susceptibility profiles were determined by investigating antibiotic disks using Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion method using Muller-Hinton Agar (Merck) as a solid medium [9]. Clear zones (zones of inhibition) were measured after 18 h by a scale and then compared to a Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) chart, which contains information of standard measurements that indicate the particular sample is sensitive, intermediate or resistant to a specific antibiotic [10]. All positive cultures were included in this study except for the incomplete registration information or the growth of various microorganisms in favor of contamination. A contaminated urine culture is defined as the presence of more than 2 isolates at greater than or equal to 10,000 CFU/mL and must be excluded from the study.

Specimens were collected from urine, blood, wound, abdominal tap, throat, stool, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), endotracheal tube (ETT), sputum, skin lesion, nasal, and mouth secretion. At least 60 ccs of midstream urine and 30 cc of blood were collected from each adult participant for culture. Other samples including wounds were collected using appropriate sterile sampling equipment (swabs, sterile syringes, etc.)

The tested antibiotics included: Norfloxacin(10 µg), Nitrofurantoin(300 µg), Penicillin(10units), Ciprofloxacin(5 µg), Cotrimoxazole(1.25/23.75 µg), Ceftazidime(30 µg), Ofloxacin(5 µg), Cefixime(5 µg), Cephalothin(30 µg), Amikacin(30 µg), Ceftriaxone(30 µg), Gentamycin(10 µg), Cefalexin(30 µg), Imipenem(10 µg), Cefotaxime(30 µg), Cefazolin(30 µg), Ampicillin(10 µg), Co-Amoxiclav(20/10µg), Rifampin(5 µg), Tetracycline(30 µg), Azithromycin(15 µg), Vancomycin(30 µg), Erythromycin(15 µg), Clindamycin(2 µg), Nalidixic Acid(30 µg), Ceftizoxime(30 µg), Cefoxitin(30 µg), Amoxicillin(30 µg), Cefepime(30 µg), Doxycycline(30 µg), and Oxacillin(1 µg). Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were based on the CLSI guidelines [10].

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software version 26 using descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation (SD), or frequency and percentage (%)) and analytical tests. Categorical variables were evaluated with Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 783 samples were evaluated in our study, with their age ranging from 1 day to 97 years old, with an average of 30.6 years and 54.5% females. Most of the bacterial isolates were gram-negative (64.2%). Table 1 demonstrates the baseline features of the patients in our study.

Table 1 Baseline hospital features of patients in our study
Full size table

The patient’s specimen and culture results were evaluated and the results of AMR are demonstrated in Table 2.

Table 2 Antibiotic resistance patterns and their association with age, gender, and admission ward based on antibiotic pattern evaluation
Full size table

As demonstrated in Table 2, the frequency distribution of norfloxacin antibiotic resistance was statistically significant in different wards and was more common in internal medicine (66.7%) and infectious (63.6%), wards. (P = 0.003) The resistance was also significantly higher among the above 60 years age group (P < 0.001).

The frequency distribution of Penicillin antibiotic resistance was statistically significant in different wards (P < 0.05). The highest resistance was related to the maternity ward, infectious ward, and neonates (P = 0.017). Regarding Cefixime, the majority of resistant were among the surgery (79.2%) and infectious (73.3%) wards (P = 0.006). Regarding Amikacin, the majority of sensitive were in the emergency (71.4%), pediatric emergency (84.9%) wards (P < 0.001). The majority of sensitivity regarding Gentamycin was among the postpartum (80.4%) and pediatric emergency (78.5) wards (P < 0.001). Cephalexin resistance majority were in infectious (83.3%), surgery (81.8%), and Intensive care unit (ICU) (75%) wards (P < 0.001). Cefotaxime and Cefazolin were 100% resistant in the ICU (100%) ward (P < 0.001 and 0.004, respectively) and Amoxicillin resistance was mainly in the ICU (80%) (P = 0.035). All cases of Oxacillin were resistant.

Figures 1 and 2 demonstrates the distribution of AMR based on the age groups and gender of our patients.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Demonstration of microbiological resistance pattern among male (above) and female (below) patients

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Demonstration of microbiological resistance pattern based on age groups

Full size image

The microbial results of the cultures are presented in Table 3. As demonstrated, most cultures were Escherichia coli (E. coli) (49.9%), mainly among urine samples (64.2%). Also, the microbial antibiogram resistance pattern is demonstrated in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 3 Evaluation of microbial results based on obtained cultures
Full size table
Table 4 Antibiotic resistance patterns based on pathogens
Full size table
Table 5 Antibiotic resistance patterns based on pathogens (cont.)
Full size table

Discussion

Iran is one of the countries with high consumption of antimicrobials which could be due to the uncontrolled, over-the-counter sale of medicines, including antimicrobials [11, 12]. Researchers warned of antimicrobial overuse and overprescribing and the resulting AMR as a major hurdle for Iran’s health system half a century ago [13]. This is still a source of concern, as the National Committee for Rational Use of Drugs (NCRUD) reported in 2015 that more than half of patients received antibiotics which are considered irrational behavior by NCRUD [11]. Accordingly, this cross-sectional study has shown high levels of resistance to recommended antibiotics in the ambulatory setting in four different groups of bacteria, including the Enterobacteriaceae family, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Coagulase-negative staphylococci, and Coagulase positive staphylococci.

The Enterobacteriaceae family

Gram-negative pathogens cause significant morbidity [7]. The Enterobacteriaceae family and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are motile gram-negative rod-shaped pathogens studied in this article [2]. The Enterobacteriaceae family, including E. coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterobacter spp., is the leading cause of urinary tract infections (UTIs), bloodstream infections, hospital infections, and healthcare-associated pneumonia [14, 15]. Most of the Enterobacteriaceae samples used in this study are isolated from urine, indicating the role of this group of bacteria in causing UTIs. There were also fewer samples from blood and throat containing E. coli and Klebsiella.

In case of treatment, Nitrofurantoin, fluoroquinolones, and cephalosporins are usually considered appropriate choices for empirical therapy of bacteria belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family, although third and earlier generations of cephalosporines are no longer a desirable option [16].

This trial shows a low rate of resistance (8.5%) against Nitrofurantoin in E. coli, but it is not recommended in the treatment of Klebsiella or Enterobacter species considering the high rate of resistance of around 50% to this antibiotic. Norfloxacin, Ciprofloxacin, and Ofloxacin were investigated from fluoroquinolones group of antibiotics. They are still pretty much effective against this family but Ciprofloxacin and Ofloxacin are not recommended for E. coli infection.

Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins in Enterobacteriaceae is caused by the production of Beta-lactamases [17]. All three subgroups of Enterobacteriaceae studied are approximately 50% resistant to this generation of cephalosporins. Ceftriaxone had the lowest rate of resistance (32%) in Klebsiella.

Resistance to Ampicillin, Amoxicillin, and early generation cephalosporins is caused by class A Beta-lactamase enzymes [18]. Based on results of this study, these antibiotics are not recommended for empirical antibiotic therapy of UTI either considering high resistance, around 80%.

In summary, based on our study Aminopenicillin family and earlier than the third generation of cephalosporin are not effective against this family of bacteria, and the 3rd generation of cephalosporin is at risk of getting resistant.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a gram-negative aerobic bacterium found in the normal intestinal flora and a potent pathogen that causes infection in immunocompromised patients [19]. This pathogen can survive on dry hospital surfaces. It is one of the most common nosocomial pathogens that can cause ventilator-associated pneumonia and bloodstream infections [20].

Carbapenem, a class of antibiotics commonly used when bacteria are resistant to cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, are B-lactam antibiotics that inhibit the synthesis of bacterial peptidoglycan cell walls can be effective in the treatment of patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) [21]. In our study, only two samples of P. aeruginosa were tested regarding their sensitivity to Imipenem, in which both were sensitive. Other studies have also reported a 94.15% sensitivity to Imipenem has been reported [22]. However, due to our small sample size, further larger populational studies are required to draw a clear conclusion regarding the sensitivity and resistance of B-lactam antibiotics among P. aeruginosa.

Other studies show that Cephalosporins of the third and fourth generations, such as Ceftazidime and Cefepime, are the most effective Beta-lactams used in the treatment of P. aeruginosa [21]. A study by Fazeli et al. reported a 24.6% sensitivity to Ceftazidime has been reported [23]. The samples evaluating sensitivity of Ceftazidime, Cefotaxime, and Ceftriaxone in our study were limited and provide efficient data to estimate the AMR among P. aeruginosa. However, we cannot deny the uprising of resistance of the mentioned antibiotics in this microorganism.

Resistance to aminoglycosides in P. aeruginosa is mediated by transferable aminoglycoside modifying enzymes (AMEs) [21, 24]. However, in Iran and our study, P. aeruginosa is still sensitive to Amikacin, and there is only 20% resistance to Gentamycin.

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS)

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are a large group of gram-positive cocci distinguished by the absence of the coagulase virulence factor [25]. CoNS are common skin and mucosa microflora that coexists with S. aureus and various other bacteria in the human nostrils [26]. Many CoNS infections are caused by foreign bodies, which promote biofilm colonization and contribute to CoNS pathogenic potential [27]. They are usually categorized as contaminants instead of infectious agents [28].

Macrolides are one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics against this group in ambulatory settings [29]. We discovered a concerning high rate of Azithromycin (94.4%) and Erythromycin (63.6%) resistance. In a previous study reported by Asante et al. 74.2% of all isolates were resistant to Azithromycin and Erythromycin [30].

The most common species of Coagulase positive staphylococci is Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus). It is a major pathogen in hospital and community-acquired acquired infections, and it can cause a variety of infectious diseases, including mild skin and soft tissue infections, infective endocarditis, bacteremia, and osteomyelitis [31]. S. aureus was well-managed up until 1950, when penicillin resistance developed. Then methicillin was introduced to clinical practice, which was effective in treating penicillin-resistant S. aureus infections [32, 33]. Vancomycin has long been considered as the last line of treatment against gram-positive cocci infection [34]. However, Staphylococcus aureus resistance to Vancomycin is rising on a daily basis, causing major issues in the medical community [35]. The 56.5% resistance of positive staph coagulase to Vancomycin is accompanied with clinical significance, based on the challenges in the management and mortalities associated with vancomycin resistant infections [36].

Age-related rate of antimicrobial resistance

The elderly are a notably important population in terms of antibiotic overuse, using roughly 50% more antibiotics than younger adults [37, 38]. This overuse can be due to a combination of factors, including physiological changes leading to recurrent infections and frequent exposure to multidrug resistance bacteria in long-term care facilities [39,40,41,42,43]. The higher number of comorbidities among older patients causes more hospitalizations, a setting where they get exposed to multidrug-resistant bacteria [44, 45]. as a result of repeated exposure to multidrug resistant bacteria and higher risk of infection, AMR rates are approximately 2 to 3-folds higher in older patients comparing to younger patients [43]. In our research, high AMR is shown in patients older than 60-year-old. This case can be due to arbitrary use of antibiotics, aging and health problems in these people. Also, empirical antibiotic administration and overuse of antibiotic in patients without any clinical indications is a growing concern in our country, which overtime can increase AMR [46, 47]. The growing resistance to antibacterial is obvious comparing the age groups of 7 to 18 and the 19 to 60.

Gender-related rate of antimicrobial resistance

Although women are approximately 27% more likely than men to receive antibiotic prescriptions, AMR is higher among men. This can be due to biological differences, differences in prescribed antibiotics, and more likelihood of men contracting hospital-acquired infections due to higher hospitalization rates, especially in older age groups. Poorer compliance of men for using medication or hand hygiene recommendations can also contribute to this difference [48,49,50,51,52]. Microbiological resistance pattern among male and female patients has been compared in Fig. 2. Our study also shows lower AMR among females, although they make up the majority of individuals receiving antibiotics in this study (54.5%).

Ward-related rate of antimicrobial resistance

Our study demonstrated that resistance with Cephalexin, Cefotaxime, Cefazolin, and also Amoxicillin were the most frequent in the ICU, Cephalexin, Penicillin in infectious, and also Cephalexin, Cefixime in surgery. Other studies have also supported the increase of resistance of cephalosporins and fluroquinolones in ICUs, which are mainly due to use of invasive procedures and overall hospital-acquired infections rate [53]. Gong et al. stated that infection profiles in ICU and wards differ, and multidrug resistance in ICU is more severe than in wards. As a result, various infection-control measures should be prioritized in various populations [54].

Limitations

Among the limitations was the retrospective and cross-sectional nature of our study, which limits us in evaluating the possible causative relationship between the patients features and conditions with their microorganism resistance patterns. Also, our study lacks molecular analysis to identify the source of infection was required. Another limitation is the small sample size in a number of evaluated microorganisms, which limits the capability of providing a generalizable estimate of the sensitivity percentage among our study population. Further multicentral studies are required along with the evaluation of applied hospital infection control policies to increase the understanding of the trend of microorganism resistance patterns and possible effective mechanism in the control and management of this.

Conclusion

In this study conducted in Yasuj Hospitals, Southern west Iran, we isolated different microorganisms from different wards and surveyed their rate of antibiotic resistance. Considering widespread empirical antibiotic therapy in Iran, the rate of increasing resistance to common antibiotics prescribed for ambulatory and hospitalized patients is concerning. Aminopenicillin family and earlier than the third generation of cephalosporin are not recommended for the treatment of the Enterobacteriaceae family. P. aeruginosa is sensitive to Amikacin, but it is developing multidrug resistance globally. In Coagulase-negative staphylococci, Macrolides are usually prescribed, but high rates of resistance against this group of antibiotics have developed. Considering S. aureus, Vancomycin resistance is higher than 50%. Since this medication is the last resort in the treatment of Methicillin-resistant S. aureus this level of resistance is alarming. We should also take into account AMR threats against elderly population since it leads to more severe disease and prolonged hospitalization in this group. Also, reasons of the high rate of AMR in men should be investigated more accurately. We recommend for demonstrating a plan to control overuse and over prescription of antimicrobials by health policy making organization.

Data Availability

All data regarding this study has been reported in the manuscript. Please contact the corresponding author if you are interested in any further information.

Abbreviations

AME:

Aminoglycoside Modifying Enzyme

AMR:

Antimicrobial Resistance

CLSI:

Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute

Cons:

Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci

CSF:

Cerebrospinal Fluid

E.Coli:

Escherichia Coli

ETT:

Endotracheal Tube

ICU:

Intensive Care Unit

NCRUD:

National Committee for Rational Use of Drugs

P. Aeruginosa:

Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

SD:

Standard Deviation

S. Aureus:

Staphylococcus Aureus

UTI:

Urinary Tract Infections

References

  1. Misganaw A, Haregu TN, Deribe K, Tessema GA, Deribew A, Melaku YA, Amare AT, Abera SF, Gedefaw M, Dessalegn M, et al. National mortality burden due to communicable, non-communicable, and other diseases in Ethiopia, 1990–2015: findings from the global burden of Disease Study 2015. Popul Health Metr. 2017;15:29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Retamar P, Portillo MM, Lopez-Prieto MD, Rodriguez-Lopez F, de Cueto M, Garcia MV, Gomez MJ, Del Arco A, Munoz A, Sanchez-Porto A, et al. Impact of inadequate empirical therapy on the mortality of patients with bloodstream infections: a propensity score-based analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(1):472–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmadishooli A, Davoodian P, Shoja S, Ahmadishooli B, Dadvand H, Hamadiyan H, Shahriarirad R. Frequency and Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Diabetic Foot infection of patients from Bandar Abbas District, Southern Iran. J Pathog. 2020;2020:1057167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Vazin A, Shahriarirad R, Azadeh N, Parandavar N, Kazemi K, Shafiekhani M. Incidence, clinicomicrobiological characteristics, risk factors, and TreatmentOutcomes of bacterial infections following liver transplantation in Pediatrics: a retrospective cohort study. Archives of Pediatric Infectious Diseases 2022 (In Press).

  5. Where Resistance Spreads. : Across the World | CDC. [https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/across-the-world.html].

  6. Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, Zaidi AK, Wertheim HF, Sumpradit N, Vlieghe E, Hara GL, Gould IM, Goossens H, et al. Antibiotic resistance-the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(12):1057–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Breijyeh Z, Jubeh B, Karaman R. Resistance of Gram-Negative Bacteria to current Antibacterial Agents and Approaches to resolve it. Molecules. 2020;25(6):1340.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tille PM. Bailey and Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology. 2017.

  9. Hudzicki J. Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion susceptibility test protocol.

  10. Wayne P. Clinical and laboratory standards institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 2011.

  11. Abbasian H, Hajimolaali M, Yektadoost A, Zartab S. Antibiotic utilization in Iran 2000–2016: Pattern Analysis and Benchmarking with Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries. J Res Pharm Pract. 2019;8(3):162–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hashemi S, Nasrollah A, Rajabi M. Irrational antibiotic prescribing: a local issue or global concern? EXCLI J. 2013;12:384–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Amidi S, Solter S, Rashidian B, Zokaian A-R, Razmjoian F. Antibiotic use and abuse among physicians in private practice in Shiraz, Iran. Med Care 1975:341–5.

  14. Brenner DJ, Farmer JJ. <i> Enterobacteriaceae</i>. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria. Wiley; 2015: 1–24.

  15. Janda JM, Lopez DL. The Family Enterobacteriaceae. Practical handbook of Microbiology. CRC Press; 2021: 353–62.

  16. Brusch J, Bronze M. Urinary tarct infection (UTI) and cystitis (bladder infection) in females. Child Urin Tract Infect. 2020;32:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Iredell J, Brown J, Tagg K. Antibiotic resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: mechanisms and clinical implications. BMJ. 2016;352:h6420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kapmaz M, Erdem F, Abulaila A, Yeniaras E, Oncul O, Aktas Z. First detection of NDM-1 with CTX-M-9, TEM, SHV and rmtC in Escherichia coli ST471 carrying IncI2, A/C and Y plasmids from clinical isolates in Turkey. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2016;7:152–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu W, Jin Y, Bai F, Jin S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Molecular Medical Microbiology. Elsevier; 2015: 753–67.

  20. Lyczak JB, Cannon CL, Pier GB. Establishment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: lessons from a versatile opportunist. Microbes Infect. 2000;2(9):1051–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Duin D, Doi Y. The global epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Virulence. 2017;8(4):460–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Osundiya O, Oladele R, Oduyebo O. Multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) indices of Pseudomonas and Klebsiella species isolates in Lagos University Teaching Hospital. Afr J Clin Experimental Microbiol. 2013;14(3):164–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fazeli H, Solgi H, Havaei SA, Shokri D, Norouzi Barogh M, Zamani FZ. Carbapenem and fluoroquinolone resistance in multidrug resistant pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from al-zahra hospital, isfahan, iran. J Med Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;2(4):147–52.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Driscoll JA, Brody SL, Kollef MH. The epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Drugs. 2007;67(3):351–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Becker K, Both A, Weisselberg S, Heilmann C, Rohde H. Emergence of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2020;18(4):349–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kock R, Werner P, Friedrich AW, Fegeler C, Becker K. Prevalence of Multiresistant Microorganisms Study G, Prevalence of Multiresistant Microorganisms PMMSG: persistence of nasal colonization with human pathogenic bacteria and associated antimicrobial resistance in the german general population. New Microbes New Infect. 2016;9:24–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hussain M, Kohler C, Becker K. Role of SrtA in pathogenicity of Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Microorganisms. 2020;8(12):1975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Michels R, Last K, Becker SL, Papan C. Update on coagulase-negative staphylococci-what the Clinician should know. Microorganisms. 2021;9(4):830.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Marincola G, Liong O, Schoen C, Abouelfetouh A, Hamdy A, Wencker FDR, Marciniak T, Becker K, Kock R, Ziebuhr W. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in Community-Based healthy individuals in Germany. Front Public Health. 2021;9:684456.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Asante J, Hetsa BA, Amoako DG, Abia ALK, Bester LA, Essack SY. Multidrug-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococci isolated from Bloodstream in the uMgungundlovu District of KwaZulu-Natal Province in South Africa: emerging pathogens. Antibiot (Basel). 2021;10(2):198.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Humphreys H. Staphylococcus aureus: the enduring pathogen in surgery. Surgeon. 2012;10(6):357–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jokinen E, Laine J, Huttunen R, Rahikka P, Huhtala H, Vuento R, Vuopio J, Syrjanen J. Comparison of outcome and clinical characteristics of bacteremia caused by methicillin-resistant, penicillin-resistant and penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains. Infect Dis (Lond). 2017;49(7):493–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pichereau S, Rose WE. Invasive community-associated MRSA infections: epidemiology and antimicrobial management. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2010;11(18):3009–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Micek ST. Alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(Suppl 3Supplement3):184–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haseeb A, Ajit Singh V, Teh CSJ, Loke MF. Addition of ceftaroline fosamil or vancomycin to PMMA: an in vitro comparison of biomechanical properties and anti-MRSA efficacy. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019;27(2):2309499019850324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. DiazGranados CA, Zimmer SM, Klein M, Jernigan JA. Comparison of mortality associated with vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococcal bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(3):327–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Arizpe A, Reveles KR, Aitken SL. Regional variation in antibiotic prescribing among medicare part D enrollees, 2013. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):744.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hicks LA, Bartoces MG, Roberts RM, Suda KJ, Hunkler RJ, Taylor TH Jr, Schrag SJ. US outpatient antibiotic prescribing variation according to geography, patient population, and provider specialty in 2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(9):1308–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Beckett CL, Harbarth S, Huttner B. Special considerations of antibiotic prescription in the geriatric population. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21(1):3–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. El Chakhtoura NG, Bonomo RA, Jump RLP. Influence of aging and environment on presentation of infection in older adults. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017;31(4):593–608.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Esme M, Topeli A, Yavuz BB, Akova M. Infections in the Elderly critically-ill patients. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019;6:118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ittisanyakorn M, Ruchichanantakul S, Vanichkulbodee A, Sri-On J. Prevalence and factors associated with one-year mortality of infectious diseases among elderly emergency department patients in a middle-income country. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):662.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. O’Fallon E, Kandel R, Schreiber R, D’Agata EM. Acquisition of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria: incidence and risk factors within a long-term care population. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(11):1148–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pop-Vicas AE, D’Agata EM. The rising influx of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli into a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(12):1792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tumbarello M, Sali M, Trecarichi EM, Leone F, Rossi M, Fiori B, De Pascale G, D’Inzeo T, Sanguinetti M, Fadda G, et al. Bloodstream infections caused by extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase- producing Escherichia coli: risk factors for inadequate initial antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(9):3244–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Nimer NA. Nosocomial infection and antibiotic-resistant threat in the Middle East. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:631–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hadi U, Kolopaking EP, Gardjito W, Gyssens IC, Van den Broek P. Antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic use in low-income and developing countries. Folia Med Indonesiana. 2006;42(3):183–95.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Humphreys H, Fitzpatick F, Harvey BJ. Gender differences in rates of carriage and bloodstream infection caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: are they real, do they matter and why? Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(11):1708–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Neubeiser A, Bonsignore M, Tafelski S, Alefelder C, Schwegmann K, Ruden H, Geffers C, Nachtigall I. Mortality attributable to hospital acquired infections with multidrug-resistant bacteria in a large group of german hospitals. J Infect Public Health. 2020;13(2):204–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schroder W, Sommer H, Gladstone BP, Foschi F, Hellman J, Evengard B, Tacconelli E. Gender differences in antibiotic prescribing in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(7):1800–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van Lunzen J, Altfeld M. Sex differences in infectious diseases-common but neglected. J Infect Dis. 2014;209(suppl 3):79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Singer M, Martin-Loeches I, Machado FR, Marshall JC, Finfer S, Pelosi P, Brazzi L, Aditianingsih D, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of infection among patients in Intensive Care Units in 2017. JAMA. 2020;323(15):1478–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Jacoby TS, Kuchenbecker RS, Dos Santos RP, Magedanz L, Guzatto P, Moreira LB. Impact of hospital-wide infection rate, invasive procedures use and antimicrobial consumption on bacterial resistance inside an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2010;75(1):23–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gong Y, Peng Y, Luo X, Zhang C, Shi Y, Zhang Y, Deng J, Peng Y, Luo G, Li H. Different infection profiles and antimicrobial resistance patterns between burn ICU and common wards. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:681731.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was the subject of MD dissertation of Dr Gordafarin Nikbakht.

Funding

No financial support was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran

    Fatemeh Forouzani, Tahere Khasti & Sara Ravangard

  2. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran

    Leila Manzouri & Gordafarin Nikbakht

  3. Thoracic and Vascular Surgery Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran

    Reza Shahriarirad

  4. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Maryam Koleini

  5. Students Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Nazanin Ayareh

Authors
  1. Fatemeh Forouzani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tahere Khasti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leila Manzouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara Ravangard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reza Shahriarirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maryam Koleini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nazanin Ayareh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gordafarin Nikbakht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.F. and G.N. designed the study. T.K, L.M, and S.R. collected the data. R.S. analyzed the data. M.K. and N.A. drafted the manuscript and R.S. revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordafarin Nikbakht.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee (Yasuj University of Medical Sciences Ethics committee) of the academy and all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Based on the retrospective nature of the study, informed consent waiver was approved by the Ethics committee of Yasuj University of Medical Sciences. Patients information were anonymized prior to analysis and the confidentiality was assured by the researcher.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forouzani, F., Khasti, T., Manzouri, L. et al. Resistance pattern of isolated microorganisms from 783 clinical specimen cultures in patients admitted to Yasuj Educational Hospitals, Iran. BMC Microbiol 23, 205 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02952-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02952-4

Keywords

BMC Microbiology

ISSN: 1471-2180

Contact us