Pubmed

 


BLEE


  • Antibiotic Resistance Profile and Diversity of Subtypes Genes in Escherichia coli Causing Bloodstream Infection in Northern Vietnam.
    Related Articles

    Antibiotic Resistance Profile and Diversity of Subtypes Genes in Escherichia coli Causing Bloodstream Infection in Northern Vietnam.

    Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Dec 30;7(24):4393-4398

    Authors: Hung PN, Quyet D, Thanh KC, Pho DC, Tien TV, Dung QA, Linh DD, Tan HT, Dinh TC, Bac ND, Nam LV

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: Evaluating the antibiotic susceptibility and resistance genes is essential in the clinical management of bloodstream infections (BSIs). But there are still limited studies in Northern Vietnam.
    AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the antibiotic resistance profile and characteristics of subtypes genes in Escherichia coli causing BSIs in Northern Vietnam.
    METHODS: The cross-sectional study was done in the period from December 2012 to June 2014 in two tertiary hospitals in Northern Vietnam. Tests were performed at the lab of the hospital.
    RESULTS: In 56 E. coli strains isolating 39.29 % produced ESBL. 100% of the isolates harbored blaTEM gene, but none of them had the blaPER gene. The prevalence of ESBL producers and ESBL non-producers in blaCTX-M gene was 81.82%, and 73.53%, in blaSHV gene was 18.18% and 35.29%. Sequencing results showed three blaTEM subtypes (blaTEM 1, 79, 82), four blaCTX-M subtypes (blaCTX-M-15, 73, 98, 161), and eight blaSHV subtypes (blaSHV 5, 7, 12, 15, 24, 33, 57, 77). Antibiotic resistance was higher in ampicillin (85.71%), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (64.29%) and cephazolin (50%). Antibiotics were still highly susceptible including doripenem (96.43%), ertapenem (94.64%), amikacin (96.43%), and cefepime (89.29%).
    CONCLUSION: In Escherichia coli causing BSIs, antibiotic resistance was higher in ampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and cephazolin. Antibiotics was highly susceptible including doripenem, ertapenem, amikacin, and cefepime.

    PMID: 32215101 [PubMed]




Infección intraabdominal



Pie diabético


  • Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.
    Related Articles

    Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

    Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3282

    Authors: Peters EJG, Lipsky BA, Senneville É, Abbas ZG, Aragón-Sánchez J, Diggle M, Embil JM, Kono S, Lavery LA, Malone M, Urbančič-Rovan V, Van Asten SA

    Abstract
    The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

    PMID: 32176437 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]



Deja un comentario

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir el spam. Aprende cómo se procesan los datos de tus comentarios.