Aim
The aim of the study was to identify the microorganisms associated with the chronic discharging ears and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern.
Materials and methods
A total of 251 samples of ear swabs were received at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Pus samples were taken from external auditory canal using sterile cotton swabs and then cultured on different microbiological media. Antibiotic sensitivity was tested and interpreted by method according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute standards.
Results
Out of 251 samples received, 135 (53.78%) samples had growth. The microbiology of these 135 samples was studied. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the major organism isolated from 88 samples followed by Staphylococcus aureus (37), and other coliforms (10). Drug susceptibility of P. aeruginosa showed that colistin was active against all isolates followed by piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem. Approximately 60% S. aureus isolates were methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Vancomycin, linezolid, and teicoplanin were 100% sensitive.
Conclusion
From the current study, it was concluded that P. aeruginosa is the potential cause of ear-associated infections. All isolates of P. aeruginosa were susceptible to colistin, and S. aureus was susceptible to vancomycin, linezolid, and teicoplanin.
How to cite this article
Agrawal M, Gupta N, Pandey G. Bacterial Etiology of Otitis Media and their Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern among Patients coming to a Tertiary Care Hospital, Jaipur, India. J Mahatma Gandhi Univ Med Sci Tech 2017;2(1):7-9.
Introduction: UTI is the most common bacterial infection worldwide with women in reproductive age group being 30 times more likely to suffer from it than men due to short urethra and proximity of uretheral opening with anal canal. Escherichia coli is the most common organism responsible for UTI and there has been an increase in incidence of community acquired UTI caused by ESBL producing E. coli. This study was planned to see the sensitivity of amikacin in urinary isolates so it can be considered as a treatment option in ESBL producing organisms, reserving high-end drugs like carbapenems.
Materials and Methods:The retrospective study was carried out between January 2017 to August 2017 with 1025 patients of suspected UTI being screened for growth of bacteria in their urine samples and their sensitivity to antibiotics. Both males and females were included in the study, ages ranging from 0 year to >80 yrs. Urine samples were inoculated on Blood agar and MacConkey agar. All positive cultures were tested for antibiotic susceptibility testing by Kirby bauer disc diffusion technique. Results: Out of total 1025 samples, growth was detected in 171 (16.7%) samples. Out of these 121 (70.8%) were females, and 50 (29.2%) were males. Maximum number of males are seen in age group 21-30yrs i.e. 13 (26%) followed by 41 to 50yrs i.e. 12 (24%). Also, maximum number of females are seen in age group 21-30yrs i.e. 41 (33.9%) followed by 21 (17.4%) patients in age group 41-50yrs. Most common microbial agent isolated was Esch.coli (97/171), followed by Klebsiella spp. (25/171). The important finding of the study was the sensitivity pattern of amikacin which was found to be sensitive in 61% of the isolates which is quite significant and we can use amikacin rather than high end antibiotics like carbapenems in these cases of UTI which will prevent emergence of resistance against them. Conclusion: Our finding i.e. Amikacin being highly sensitive to urinary pathogens reflects upon the facts that in sensitive cases, Amikacin can be used for ESBL producing uropathogens instead of costly high end antibiotics like Carbapenams.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.