期刊文献+

2019年北京协和医院细菌耐药性分析 被引量:7

Analysis of Antimicrobial Resistance in Peking Union Medical College Hospital in 2019
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的了解2019年北京协和医院分离的常见细菌对抗菌药物的耐药性。方法回顾性分析2019年1月1日至12月31日从北京协和医院分离的11404株非重复细菌的药敏结果。结果11404株细菌中革兰氏阴性菌占63.8%(7276/11404)、革兰氏阳性菌占36.2%(4128/11404)。葡萄球菌属中,甲氧西林耐药的金黄色葡萄球菌(methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus,MRSA)和甲氧西林耐药的凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus,MRCNS)的检出率分别为18.9%(191/1009)和77.3%(659/853),两者对红霉素的耐药率均较高(79.6%、83.2%)。肠球菌属中,屎肠球菌和粪肠球菌的检出率别为38.2%(437/1143)和54.6%(624/1143),对利奈唑胺(0.2%、0.3%)、万古霉素(4.3%、0.2%)和替考拉宁(3.0%、0)的耐药率较低。链球菌属中,肺炎链球菌、α溶血链球菌、A群和B群β溶血链球菌的检出率分别为12.8%(130/1012)、37.9%(384/1012)、4.2%(43/1012)和39.0%(395/1012),各菌种对红霉素、阿奇霉素和克林霉素的耐药率较高,其中肺炎链球菌和A群β溶血链球菌对此3种抗菌药物的耐药率均≥88.7%。肠杆菌科中,碳青霉烯类耐药肠杆菌科细菌(carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,CRE)、肺炎克雷伯菌广泛耐药(extensive drug resistance,XDR)菌株的检出率分别为7.1%(308/4324)、4.7%(60/1273);肠杆菌科细菌对替加环素、碳青霉烯类和阿米卡星的耐药率较低。不发酵糖革兰氏阴性杆菌中,鲍曼不动杆菌对替加环素的耐药率最低(6.9%),对哌拉西林的耐药率最高(93.3%);铜绿假单胞菌对阿米卡星的耐药率最低(4.5%),对左氧氟沙星的的耐药率最高(22.6%);鲍曼不动杆菌和铜绿假单胞菌中XDR菌株的检出率为12.3%(117/949)和1.8%(21/1137)。流感嗜血杆菌中,β-内酰胺酶的阳性率为34.1%(45/132);流感嗜血杆菌对氨苄西林的耐药率最高(62.9%),除氯霉素外对其他抗菌药物的耐药率为33.3%~48.4%。结论2019年北京协和医院分离的常见细菌对常用抗菌药物有不同程度的耐药,可能对抗菌药物的合理使用和科学管理有指导作用。 Objective To investigate the antimicrobial resistance of clinical bacterial isolates in Peking Union Medical College Hospital(PUMCH)in 2019.Methods The antimicrobial resistance of 11404 non-duplicated common bacteria isolated from PUMCH during January 1 to December 31,2019 were retrospectively analyzed.Results In the totally 11404 clinical isolates,Gram-negative bacilli and gram-positive cocci accounted for 63.8%(7276/11404)and 36.2%(4128/11404),respectively.Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA)and Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus(MRCNS)accounted for 18.9%(191/1009)and 77.3%(659/853),respectively,both of which had a high resistance rate to erythromycin(79.6%,83.2%).Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis accounted for 38.2%(437/1143)and 54.6%(624/1143)in Enterococci,respectively;and the resistance rates to linezolid(0.2%,0.3%),vancomycin(4.3%,0.2%)and teicoplanin(3.0%,0)were low.The detection rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae,α-hemolytic Streptococcus,group A and group Bβ-hemolytic Streptococcus were 12.8%(130/1012),37.9%(384/1012),4.2%(43/1012)and 39.0%(395/1012)in Streptococcus,respectively.The resistance rates of all strains to erythromycin,azithromycin and clindamycin were more than 88.7%in Streptococcus pneumoniae and groupβ-hemolytic Streptococcus.Among the Enterobacteriaceae,the detection rates of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae(CRE)and extensive drug resistance(XDR)strains in Klebsiella pneumoniae were 7.1%(308/4324)and 4.7%(60/1273),respectively.The resistance rates of Enterobacteriaceae to tigecycline,carbapenems and amikacin were low.Among the non-fermentative Gram negative bacilli,Acinetobacter baumannii had the lowest resistance rate to tigecycline(6.9%)and the highest resistance rate to piperacillin(93.3%);Pseudomonas aeruginosa had the lowest resistance rate to amikacin(4.5%)and the highest resistance rate to levofloxacin(22.6%).The detection rates of XDR strains in Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were 12.3%(117/949)and 1.8%(21/1137),repectively.Among Haemophilus influenzae,the positive rate ofβ-lactamase was 34.1%(45/132);the resistance rate to ampicillin was the highest(62.9%);the resistance rate to other antibiotics except chloramphenicol were 33.3%-48.4%.Conclusions The common bacteria isolated from PUMCH in 2019 have different degrees of resistance to commonly used antibiotics,which may play a guiding role in the rational use and scientific management of antibiotics.
作者 刘文静 徐英春 杨启文 王瑶 孙宏莉 赵颖 窦红涛 刘亚丽 郭莉娜 朱任媛 张丽 肖盟 张小江 LIU Wen-jing;XU Ying-chun;YANG Qi-wen;WANG Yao;SUN Hong-li;ZHAO Ying;DOU Hong-tao;LIU Ya-li;GUO Li-na;ZHU Ren-yuan;ZHANG Li;XIAO Meng;ZHANG Xiao-jiang(Department of Clinical Laboratory,Beijing Key Laboratory for Mechanisms Research and Precision Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Diseases,Peking Union Medical College Hospital,Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences&Peking Union Medical College,Beijing 100730,China)
出处 《协和医学杂志》 CSCD 2021年第2期202-209,共8页 Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital
基金 国家十三五科技重大专项2019ZX09721-001-006-004-003 北京市临床重点专科医学检验科卓越项目ZK201000。
关键词 药敏试验 细菌耐药性监测 抗菌药物 antimicrobial susceptibility test antimicrobial resistance surveillances antimicrobial agents
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献48

  • 1Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-first informational supplement. MI00-S22. Wayne, PA:CLSI,2012.
  • 2European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version I. I, 2010-04-27.
  • 3Jones RN, Ferraro MJ, Reller LB, et al. Multicenter studies of tigecycline disk diffusion susceptibility results for Acinetobacter spp.J Clin Microbiol,2007 ,45 :227-230.
  • 4Fernrindez-Mazarrasa C, Mazarrasa 0, CalvoJ, et al. High concerntration of mananese in Mueller-Hinton agar increase MICs of tigecyc:line determined by Etest.J Clin Microbiol, 2009, 47: 827-829.
  • 5Bradford PA, Petersen PJ, Young M, et al. Tigecycline MIC testing by broth dilution requires use of fresh medium or addition of the biocatalytic oxygen-reducing reagent oxyrase to standardize the test method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother ,2005,49 :3903-3909.
  • 6Curcio D, Fernandez F. Comment on: Effect of different Mueller?Hinton agars on tigecycline disc diffusion susceptibility for Acinetobacter spp.J Antimicrob Chemother ,2008,62: 1166-1167.
  • 7Casal M, Rodriguez F,Johnson B, et al. Influence of testing methodology on the tigecycline activity profile against presumably tigecycline-nan-susceptible Acinetobacter spp.J Antimicrob Chemather, 2009, 64:69-72.
  • 8Zarkotou 0, Pournaras S, Altouvas G, et al. Comparative evaluation of tigecycline susceptibility testing methods far expanded-spectrum cephalosporin and carbapenem-resistant gram?negative pathogens.J Clin Microbiol, 2012, 50 :3747-3750.
  • 9LiuJW, Ko WC, Huang CH, et al. Agreement assessment of tigecycline susceptibilities determined by the disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods among commonly encountered resistant bacterial isolates: results from the Tigecycline In Vitro Surveillance in Taiwan (TIST) study, 2008 to 2010. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2012, 56:1414-1417.
  • 10Huang TD, Berhin C, Bogaerts P, et al. In vitro susceptibility of multi drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates to tigecycline.J Antimicrob Chemother, 2012, 67 :2696-2699.

共引文献185

同被引文献77

引证文献7

二级引证文献9

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部