Evaluating the pattern of antibiotic resistance of urinary tract infection (UTI)-causing bacteria in the urine culture samples of patients in the infectious ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital, Kermanshah, in Iran from 2016–2018

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Increasing resistance of bacteria to antimicrobial agents is a significant problem worldwide. This study aimed to assess the pattern of antibiotic resistance among bacteria that cause urinary tract infections (UTIs) in patients admitted to the infectious ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Kermanshah between 2016 and 2018, based on urine culture samples. Methods The present study was a cross-sectional and descriptive study. The study’s statistical population included all patients referred to the infectious disease ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital due to urinary tract infections during the project period. Urine samples were collected in sterile containers, and by using a calibrated loop, the urine sample was cultured on EMB and blood agar media under sterile conditions. Microbial sensitivity was performed by standard disk diffusion method, and the results were analyzed using SPSS-V 16 software. Results The antibiotic resistance assays showed that the highest resistance included nalidixic acid (73.5%), ciprofloxacin (72.1%), cotrimoxazole (70.6%), and ceftazidime (61.8%), cefixime (57.4%), ceftriaxone (48.5%), gentamicin (32.4%), cephalothin (16.6%), nitrofurantoin (10.3%), norfloxacin (5.9%), cefotaxime (4.4%), imipenem (2.9%), cefepime (2.9%), ampicillin (2.9%), ceftizoxime (1.5%), vancomycin (1.5%), cefazolin (1.5%), and chloramphenicol (1.5%), respectively. In addition, investigating the antibiotic resistance of UTI-causing bacteria according to the gender and age of the patients in the present study showed no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). Conclusion The bacteria causing urinary infections in the study area mainly belonged to the E. coli and Klebsiella families. Considering the determination of antibiotic sensitivity patterns in common organisms in the studied area, its report to doctors can be considered in experimental treatments.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.