Bacterial and fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among neutropenic patients. The choice of empiric antimicrobial regimen is based on susceptibility pattern of locally prevalent pathogens. From 64 febrile neutropenic patients with clinical sepsis, blood and other appropriate clinical specimens were processed to determine bacterial and fungal spectrum and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. Risk factors for developing sepsis were determined by case-control study. 68 organisms were recovered. Fifteen (22.05%) were Gram-positive cocci with predominance of methicillin Sensitive S. aureus (10.29%), 47 (69.11%) were Gram-negative rods with predominance of Klebsiella pneumoniae (30.88%) and four were Non albicans Candida. 81% and 60% of Klebsiella and E. coli were ESBL producers. All species of Candida were sensitive to amphoterecin B and voriconazole. Duration and extent of neutropenia, chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy, altered mucosal barriers and presence of central venous lines were statistically significant risk factors for developing sepsis. Gram-negative bacteria were the predominant isolates. The choice of therapy in neutropenic patients should be formulated based on local spectrum of microbes and local and regional resistance patterns.
BACKGROUND: Body fluids like ascitic fluids, pleural fluids, cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) etc. are sent for culture in a clinical microbiology laboratory to achieve etiological diagnosis. However the yield of such cultures is usually very low. So, ongoing monitoring of prevalent pathogenic organisms and their sensitivities help the clinicians institute therapy in absence of a culture report. AIMS: The study was done to identify the common pathogens isolated from body fluids along with their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern and also to evaluate the impact of enrichment on their culture positivity. SETTING AND DESIGN: A 3-month prospective analytical study was done in a tertiary care hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 333 Body fluids were processed; 103 of them were ascitic fluids, 71 pleural fluids, 139 CSF and 20 other fluids. They were processed by plating the direct sample and after enrichment. Enrichment was done by two methods: in SoyabeanCaesin digest broth (274 samples) and by BACTEC (59 samples).Isolates were identified by routine procedures & their antimicrobial susceptibility determined as per CLSI guidelines. The results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel® software using p<0.05 as the cut-off for significance. RESULTS: Gram negative isolate were obtained from 21.3% of the samples. The common isolates were Pseudomonas (20.7%), Acinetobacter (11.6%), Citrobacter (10.7%) and E. coli (10.7%). The antibiotics most effective against Gram negative pathogens were Gentamicin (47.5%), PipercillinTazobactam (51.6%), Amikacin (56.7%) and Cefoperazone-Sulbactam(65.3%). Gram positive isolates, obtained from 9% of the samples, mostly consisted of MSSA, Enterococcus and CONS, for which Ciprofloxacin (48%) followed by Cotrimoxazole (40%) and Erythromycin (28.6%) showed reasonable efficacy. The Culture positivity with direct plating, Soyabean-Caesin broth enrichment and BACTEC was 14.41%, 29.19% and 42.37% respectively. Increase in positivity by Soyabean-Casein broth was maximum for pleural fluids (12%) followed by ascitic fluids (11.6%) and CSF (11.52%).Using automated system the corresponding increases were 20.7%for ascitic fluids and 5.4%for pleural fluids. The mean time for identification using direct plating, enrichment method and BACTEC were 48 hours, 72 hours and 40 hours respectively. CONCLUSION: Gram negative isolates are commonly isolated pathogens from body fluids in our setup. Enrichment of body fluids improved yield of pathogens. In resource-poor settings simple enrichment in blood culture bottles can increase culture positivity of these precious samples.
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.