Bacteriological profile of urinary tract infections in women in Aziza Othmana Hospital: A 495 cases study

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 29, 2010
Download
pdf
Vol. 88 No. 12 (2010): Issue Dec 2010

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Lamia Thabet
Amen Allah Messadi
Balkis Meddeb
Mondher Mbarek
Amel Turki
Saida Ben Redjeb

Abstract

Background: Urinary infection is a frequent pathology in the community as well as at the hospital.
Aim: To analyze the profile of bacteria isolated from urinary tract infectious in women and their antimicrobial resistance.
Methods: During two year period (1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006), 4536 urinary specimens were analyzed at the Laboratory of Aziza Othmana Hospital. All bacteria isolated from urinary tract infection (UTI) at women were retrospectively reviewed.
Results: 495 cases of UTI were collected during this period. They were recovered from out patients (67%) or from hospitalized patients in Gynecology and obstetrics (23%). Enterobacteriacae were the most frequently identified strains (90.4%) including Escherichia coli (71%). The identified strains presented natural resistance and a high frequency of acquired resistance to betalactams(60.3% of E.coli, 72% of P.mirabilis were resistant to amoxicillin)and cotrimoxazole(30.4% of E.coli, 19,1 of K.pneumoniae, 21.4% of P.mirabilis). 5.7% of K.pneumoniae and 1.8% of E.coli were producing extended spectrum betalactamase(ESBL).
Aminoglycosides remained active on enterobacteriacae(resistance to amikacin<14%,gentamicin<5%).Ofloxacin was highly active against enterobacteriacae (resistance <14%)
Conclusion: Enterobacteriacae were the most frequent species in women urinary tract infection. Among these isolates, a high frequency of acquired resistance to betalactams and cotrimoxazole was shown. Aminoglysosides and fluoroquinolones remained the most active drugs. In every case antibiotherapy should have been prescribed after performing an antibiogram for each strain. These data were useful for the first line antibiotherapy, however the antimicrobial susceptibility testing is necessary for the rational use to limit the highly active drugs to multiresistant strains.

Keywords:

Urinary infection, antibiotic, resistance, antibiotherapy, Tunisia

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. R Couracol, A Marmonier, Y Piemont. Les difficultés d'interprétation de l'examen cytobactériologique des urines. Revue Française des laboratoires 2005 ; 370 :21-25
  2. Observatoire national de l'épidémiologie de la résistance des bactéries aux antibiotiques (ONERBA). Facteurs influençant sur la fréquence et sur le niveau de sensibilité aux antibiotiques des souches d'Escherichia coli et Proteus mirabilis isolées au cours des infections urinaires chez les patients ambulatoires. MMI 2000; 30 : 714-20.
  3. K. Larabi, A. masmoudi , C. Fendri. Etude bactériologique et phénotypes de résistance des germes responsables d'infections urinaires dans un CHU de Tunis : à propos de 1930 cas. MMI 2003 ; 33 : 348-52.
  4. K. Larabi. Epidémiologie des infections urinaires dans la région de Menzel Bourguiba : à propos de 933 cas. Tunis. Med 2001 ; 79 :242-6.
  5. C Alvarez, B Pangon, P Allouch, JC Ghnassia. Infections urinaires : principaux aspects épidémiologiques, bactériologiques et cliniques. Feuil. Biol. 1992 ; 23 :15-24.
  6. JC Soussy. Communiqué 2005. Comité de l'antibiogramme de la Soçiété Française de Microbiologie.
  7. O Bouallègue, M Saidani, S Ben mohamed, R Mzoughi. Particularités bactériologiques des infections urinaires chez l'enfant dans la région de sousse, Tunisie. Tunis Med 2004; 82:742-6.
  8. J Farrell, I Morrissey , D Rubeis, M Robbins, D Felminghan. A UK multicentre study of the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial pathogens causing urinary tract infection. J Infect 2003; 46: 94-10.
  9. Infections urinaires. Nephrophus http://www.nephrophus.org
  10. M Lemort, S Neuville, M Medus, P Gueudet, M Saada, E Lecaillon. Evolution comparée de la sensibilité de souches d'Escherichia coli isolées d'infections urinaires de patients consultants aux urgences et de patients hospitalisés en 2002 et 2004 à l'Hôpital de Perpignan. Patholo Biol (Paris) 2006; 54 :426-30.
  11. A Mahamat, JP Lavigne, N Bouziges, J Daures, A Sotto. Profils de résistance des souches urinaires de Proteus mirabilis de 1999 Ã 2005 au CHU de Nîmes. Patholo Biol (Paris) 2006 ; 24 :1-6.
  12. E Lecaillion, B Arnaud, P Guendent, N Delpech. Prévalence d'entérobactéries possédant une bétalactamase à spectre étendu chez les malades au moment de l'hospitalisation. Med. Mal. Infect 1993; 23: 431-3.
  13. T. Muratani, T. Matsumoto. Urinary tract infection caused by fluoroquinolone and cephem resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 28:10-13
  14. P. Honderlick, P. Cahen, J Gravisse, D. Vignon. Quelle sensibilité aux antibiotiques pour les bactéries responsables d'infections urinaires? Que penser de fosfomycine et nitrofuranes. Patholo Biol (Paris) 2006; 54 :462-6.
  15. A cohen, E Lautenbach, Knashawn, D Linkin. Fluoroquinolone resistant Escherichia coli in the Long Term Care setting. Am J Med 2006; 119: 958-63.
  16. P. Le Conte, D Elkharrat, G. Potel. Prise en charge des infections urinaires communautaires. Antibiotiques, journal des agents anti infectieux 2004 ; 4 :237-9.
  17. E. Bergogne- Bérézin. Antibiothérapie des infections urinaires basses. Antibiotiques, journal des agents anti infectieux 2006 ; 1 :51-62