Next Article in Journal
Characterisation of PVL-Positive Staphylococcus argenteus from the United Arab Emirates
Next Article in Special Issue
Antibiotic Resistance Trends in Uropathogens during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Western Romania: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Microbiology of Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Retrospective Study of an Italian Orthopaedic Hospital
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inhibition of Clinical MRSA Isolates by Coagulase Negative Staphylococci of Human Origin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/antibiotics13050400
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prevalence of Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance of ESKAPE Group Bacteria Isolated from Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a County Emergency Hospital in Romania

by
Alina-Simona Bereanu
1,2,
Rareș Bereanu
1,*,
Cosmin Mohor
1,2,*,
Bogdan Ioan Vintilă
1,2,
Ioana Roxana Codru
1,2,
Ciprian Olteanu
2 and
Mihai Sava
1,2
1
Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Lucian Blaga Street 2A, 550169 Sibiu, Romania
2
County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Bld. Corneliu Coposu, nr. 2-4, 550245 Sibiu, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2024, 13(5), 400; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13050400
Submission received: 4 April 2024 / Revised: 23 April 2024 / Accepted: 25 April 2024 / Published: 27 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance and Epidemiological Study of Clinically Relevant Pathogens)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The ESKAPE group (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella Pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp.) is a group of bacteria very difficult to treat due to their high ability to acquire resistance to antibiotics and are the main cause of nosocomial infections worldwide, posing a threat to global public health. Nosocomial infections with MDR bacteria are found mainly in Intensive Care Units, due to the multitude of maneuvers and invasive medical devices used, the prolonged antibiotic treatments, the serious general condition of these critical patients, and the prolonged duration of hospitalization. Materials and Methods: During a period of one year, from January 2023 to December 2023, this cross-sectional study was conducted on patients diagnosed with sepsis admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Emergency Clinical Hospital. Samples taken were tracheal aspirate, catheter tip, pharyngeal exudate, wound secretion, urine culture, blood culture, and peritoneal fluid. Results: The most common bacteria isolated from patients admitted to our Intensive Care Unit was Klebsiella pneumoniae, followed by Acinetobacter baumanii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Gram-positive cocci (Enterococcus faecium and Staphilococcus aureus) were rarely isolated. Most of the bacteria isolated were MDR bacteria. Conclusions: The rise of antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance among strains in the nosocomial environment and especially in Intensive Care Units raises serious concerns about limited treatment options.

1. Introduction

The global spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria has led to increased in-hospital mortality and reduced treatment options, making it an increasingly worrisome problem. According to statistics, in 2019, 1.27 million deaths were directly caused by bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and 4.95 million deaths were associated with bacterial resistance [1,2]. The ESKAPE group (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella Pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter) is a group of bacteria very difficult to treat, due to their high capacity to acquire resistance to antibiotics and which are the main causes of nosocomial infections worldwide, posing a threat to global public health [3]. The acronym is sometimes extended to ESKAPEE to also include Escherichia coli [4].
The worldwide spread of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB), especially Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter, is a worrying threat. There is particular concern regarding the spread of multi-drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (MDR-KP). Klebsiella pneumoniae is a pathogenic, non-motile bacterium that possesses special abilities to acquire antimicrobial resistance due to the accumulation of mobile antimicrobial resistance genes gained through horizontal gene transfer. In the Intensive Care Units, it is frequently associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia and sepsis, possibly even leading to septic shock and death. There is no optimal antibiotic regimen; several combinations of antibiotics have been used (aminoglycosides, meropenem, colistin, tigecycline, fosfomycin, ceftazidime/avibactam) without satisfactory results. The main resistance mechanism of multi-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) is the production of enzymes (beta-lactamases, especially carbapenemases). Some bacteria (e.g., Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli) produce extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESLB). Carbapenemases are the most potent Beta-lactamases and have versatile hydrolytic capacity against Beta-lactams (including carbapenems, cephalosporins, penicillin, and aztreonam). Three major classes of carbapenemases are involved: Ambler class A (Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases) (KPC), B (Metallo-beta-lactamases) (MBLs), and D (oxacillinases) (OXA). These three groups of enzymes are plasmid-mediated, implying easy horizontal transfer. Mobile genetic elements involved in the coding of carbapenemases are associated with a high capacity to spread worldwide; the situation in many countries is not yet well documented [5,6,7,8]. The beta-lactamase (bla) mobile resistance gene encodes the enzyme that hydrolyzes carbapenems. This gene is distributed worldwide in various Gram-negative bacteria on several plasmids, in recombined and highly transposon-rich genomic regions, which is the cause of the global dissemination of MDR-GNB [1,8,9]. Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriaceae are endemic in Greece, Italy, Israel, the United States, Argentina, and Colombia. Those producing New Delhi Metallo-Beta-Lactamase-1 (MBL NMD-1) are endemic in India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and those producing OXA-48-like oxacillinases are encountered in Malta, Turkey, the Middle East, and North Africa [9,10,11,12]. In 2016, the Annual Report of the European Antibiotic Surveillance Network reported an average carbapenem resistance percentage of 6.1%, with prevalent distribution in Greece, Romania, and Italy [12]. In 2022, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the National Public Health Organization in Greece published the results of their study, issuing a warning about the rapid spread of carbapenemase-producing, highly drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (sequence type 39) in hospitals in Greece [13]. A significant characteristic of Klebsiella pneumoniae virulence is the capacity to develop biofilms.
The resistance mechanisms of Acinetobacter baumannii are based on its genetic plasticity, which facilitates rapid genetic mutations and rearrangements. In addition, it easily forms biofilms. There are three main mechanisms that confer resistance to antibiotics: control of antibiotic transport (reduction of membrane permeability or increase in antibiotic efflux), modification of antibiotic targets, and enzymatic inactivation of antibiotics. Acinetobacter baumannii can form biofilms on medical devices, especially Intensive Care unit ventilators [14].
Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibits three main mechanisms of antibiotic resistance: intrinsic resistance, decreased outer membrane permeability, and multidrug efflux systems. It also possesses the ability to easily colonize and form biofilms on medical devices and surfaces in the hospital environment [15].
The resistance mechanism of Gram-positive bacteria can occur by two major strategies: by the production of β-lactamases leading to the enzymatic degradation of the antibiotic or by decreasing the affinity and susceptibility of the target site, namely the penicillin-binding protein (PBP), either by acquiring exogenous DNA or by modifications of native PBP genes. Among Gram-positive bacteria of global concern are Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) [16,17].
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS). Despite limitations in some countries related to staff shortages, data management issues, budget issues, and reduced laboratory capacity, an increasing number of countries are working to report data more fully and efficiently, expand their surveillance capacity, and combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [18].
In recent years, the guidelines have focused on the implementation of measures to control and prevent nosocomial infections in hospitals, but the effectiveness of these measures remains unknown. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the effectiveness of individual control measures regarding the spread of MDR bacteria [19,20,21,22,23,24]. These germs are capable of persisting in human reservoirs, in the intrahospital environment, on medical devices and equipment, and generating biofilms resistant to antimicrobial substances and general disinfection measures. Increased resistance is mainly due to the limited diffusion of antibiotics and antimicrobial substances through the biofilm matrix, but also to the phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of biofilm microorganisms that differ from those of planktonic microorganisms [25,26,27,28].
Bacteria are unicellular organisms. Bacterial biofilms are aggregates of bacteria of the same or different species embedded in the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) produced by them, adherent to each other and to biotic or abiotic surfaces. Pathogenic agents colonize tissues, medical surfaces, and medical devices, reaching, under certain conditions, to form mature biofilms that protect the inside bacteria from hostile factors such as the host’s immune response, environmental factors (UV radiation, extreme pH, extreme temperature, high salinity, high pressure), and antimicrobial agents (antibiotics, disinfectants). The steps of bacterial biofilm formation are as follows: adhesion of the bacterium to the surface, irreversible attachment (secretion of EPS and inhibition of motility factor), maturation of the biofilm, and dispersal of the bacteria from the biofilm (the bacteria returning to their original form). As a final result, the biofilm expands and establishes itself in new places, contributing to the dissemination of bacteria, disease progression, and transmission of infection [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. A mature biofilm can contain over 100 trillion bacterial cells per milliliter. These cells communicate with each other through autoinductive signals; this communication is essential for biofilm development because the inside bacteria are organized into different communities, and each community has a specific task [30,37,38].
A total of 60–80% of microbial infections are related to the formation of bacterial biofilms [38,39,40]. The most common bacteria involved in infections associated with biofilms on medical devices are Staphylococcal species (S. epidermidis, S. aureus) and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (especially K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, E. coli). Staphylococcus aureus biofilms are involved in the following infections: endocarditis, chronic otitis media, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic osteomyelitis, and post-orthopedic implant infections [30]. Escherichia coli biofilms are involved in acute and recurrent urinary tract infections and biliary tract infections [30,41]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms are involved in cystic fibrosis lung infection, chronic wound infection, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic otitis media, burn wound infection, catheter-associated urinary infection, and contact lens-related keratitis [30,42]. The most common microorganisms isolated from patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are Gram-negative aerobic bacteria (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., Serratia mercescens, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), in over 60% of cases, and Gram-positive cocci (especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—MRSA) [33,43,44,45,46].
Regarding the microorganisms associated with biofilms isolated from medical devices, associations were described in which bacteria from the ESKAPE group are frequently found: Enterococci, Staphylococcus aureus at the level of cardiac valve prostheses; Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae at the level of central venous catheters; Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterococcus faecalis, at the level of urinary catheters; Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus species at the level of intrauterine devices; Enterococci, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli in hip prostheses [30].
The risk factors for colonization and infections with MDR germs are voyages to endemic areas, inadequate antibiotic therapy, prolonged hospitalization in Intensive Care Units, dependence on invasive medical devices, and the presence of comorbidities (e.g., neoplasia, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [11,47,48,49,50]. Nosocomial infections with MDR bacteria are found mainly in Intensive Care Units due to the multitude of maneuvers and invasive medical devices used, the prolonged antibiotic treatments, the serious general condition of these critical patients, and the prolonged duration of hospitalization. Mortality in these patients remains high despite the discovery and use of new antibiotics and antimicrobials. For example, the mortality rate of patients with bacteremia or respiratory infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae varies between 30 and 70% [12,13,51,52,53].
In our intensive care unit, we also face this major problem, with the presence of MDR bacterial infections from the ESKAPE group, with the KPC-KP being one of the most frequently isolated bacteria from samples collected from critical patients in our ward.

2. Results

Over the period of one year (from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023), the prevalence of nosocomial infections with bacteria from the ESKAPEE group in the Intensive care unit of the Sibiu County Emergency Clinical Hospital and the susceptibility of these bacteria to antibiotics were monitored. In total, 160 bacterial strains and six fungal strains (Candida) were isolated. Among the types of bacteria isolated, 75.6% were bacteria belonging to the ESKAPE group; the other bacteria isolated were Enterococcus faecalis, other Staphylococcus strains, Serratia marcescens, Proteus spp., Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter lowffii. The most common microorganism isolated from patients admitted to our Intensive Care Unit was Klebsiella pneumoniae (38.7%), followed by Acinetobacter baumannii (20.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.7%), Escherichia coli (5.6%), and Enterobacter cloacae (3.1%). Gram-positive cocci were rarely isolated: Enterococcus faecium (2.5%) and Staphylococcus aureus (1.8%) (Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows the percentage of MDR bacteria. As can be seen, the ESKAPE group has a worrying percentage of MDR bacteria.
Between January and December 2023, we had 62 Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in critical patients; most of the samples (26 samples) (41.9%) were from tracheal aspirate (intubated and mechanically ventilated patients). Other samples positive for K. pneumoniae were the central venous catheter tip (8%), urine (16.1%), blood (17.7%), superinfected surgical wounds, abscesses, and drain tubes (12.9%). The majority of K. pneumoniae strains (91.9%) were resistant to antibiotics (ESLB, MDR, XDR, and even PDR strains). Five isolated strains (8%) were PDR Klebsiella pneumoniae. Only five strains (8%) of those isolated did not present a resistance pattern (Table 1, Figure 3).
In 2023, Acinetobacter baumannii was the second most prevalent microorganism isolated in our department, accounting for 20.6% of all positive samples. Notably, tracheal secretions from intubated and mechanically ventilated patients were the most common source of this microorganism, with a prevalence of 54.5%. Moreover, a significant proportion of these strains exhibited multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) phenotypes, posing significant challenges to effective treatment (Table 2, Figure 4).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was present in 8.7% of bacteria-positive samples collected from patients; most Pseudomonas aeruginosa-positive samples (64.2%) were also from tracheal aspirates of intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. A total of 42.8% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were MDR and XDR (Table 3, Figure 5).
Escherichia coli was present in 5.6% of the collected samples, mostly from urine (55.5%) and ESLB-positive (Table 4, Figure 6).
Enterobacter cloacae was present in 3.1% of bacteria-positive samples collected from patients. It was most frequently found in tracheal secretions of intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. A total of 20% of Enterobacter cloacae strains were ESLB-producing (Table 5, Figure 7).
Enterococcus faecium was present in 2.5% of positive bacteria samples collected from our Intensive Care patients. It was isolated from superinfected surgical wounds and abscesses (in 75% of cases) and from urine (25%). A total of 50% of the strains belonged to the Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus group (VRE) (Table 6, Figure 8).
Staphylococcus aureus was less common in our patients (1.8% of isolated bacteria). All strains were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), isolated from tracheal aspirate (33.3%), blood (33.3%), and surgical wounds (33.3%) (Table 7, Figure 9).
As a synthesis of the data, the ESKAPE group bacteria were mainly isolated from the tracheal aspirate secretions of intubated and ventilated patients. The leading cause of sepsis in patients intubated and mechanically ventilated for more than 48 h is ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The most common microorganism identified in tracheal aspirates was Klebsiella pneumoniae (found in 43.33% of all positive tracheal aspirates), followed by Acinetobacter baumannii (30%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15%). Many of the isolated strains demonstrated resistance to antibiotics, with some being multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR), and some even pan-drug-resistant (PDR). Gram-positive cocci were rarely isolated from tracheal aspirates. Staphylococcus aureus MRSA was present in 1.66% of all tracheal aspirates positive for bacteria. Escherichia coli predominated in urine (55.5%) and was also isolated from tracheal secretions and superinfected surgical wounds. Enterococcus faecium was isolated from superinfected surgical wounds and urine, and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was equally present in tracheal aspirate, surgical wounds, and blood.
There was no correlation between the antibiotic resistance profile and the anatomical site from which the bacteria was isolated. Thus, Klebsiella pneumoniae was mainly isolated from tracheal secretions, and most isolates showed antibiotic resistance (MDR, XDR, or PDR). Only 19.23% of Klebsiella pneumoniae strains isolated from tracheal aspirates were without a resistance pattern. Klebsiella pneumoniae has also been isolated from pharyngeal exudate, urine, blood, central venous catheter tips, surgical wounds, abscesses, and abdominal drains, all of which showed antibiotic resistance (MDR, XDR, PDR). The second most common microorganism isolated from tracheal aspirates was Acinetobacter baumannii, with most of these strains showing resistance to antibiotics (MDR and XDR). Only 16.66% of Acinetobacter baumannii strains isolated from tracheal aspirate did not present a resistance pattern. Acinetobacter baumannii was also present in pharyngeal exudate, peritoneal fluid, superinfected surgical wounds, blood, and urine, all MDR or XDR strains.
There were differences in the antibiotic resistance profile between different species of bacteria. From the class of Gram-negative bacteria, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter pneumoniae showed the highest antibiotic resistance. A total of 91.9% of K. pneumoniae strains were ESLB, MDR, XDR, and PDR. A total of 91% of Acinetobacter baumanni strains were MDR and XDR strains. Resistance to all antibiotics tested (PDR) was present only in some strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae (8% of all K. pneumoniae strains) isolated from tracheal aspirates, central venous catheter tips, and superinfected surgical wounds. In the case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 42.8% of the strains were MDR strains. Only 20% of Enterobacter cloacae strains were ESLB-positive. In the group of Gram-positive cocci, all strains of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from different sites were MRSA. Regarding Enterococcus faecium, 50% of strains showed resistance to Vancomycin.

3. Discussion

In our Intensive Care Unit, we are dealing with nosocomial infections with bacteria from the ESKAPE group (75.6%). Several studies describe the ability of ESKAPE group bacteria to form biofilms on biotic and abiotic surfaces, and these biofilms lead to increased resistance to exogenous antimicrobial factors and antibiotics. Bacterial biofilms constitute important reservoirs of multi-drug-resistant pathogenic bacteria [54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. These are of two types: hydrated biofilms (for example, in drains, catheters, and parts of some medical devices) and dry surface biofilms (DSB) (on surfaces and some medical devices). MDR Gram-negative bacteria, especially K. pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli are most commonly present in urinary catheter and central venous catheter (CVC) biofilms [28,30,32]. In their study, Folliero and colleagues (2021) isolated the main bacteria contaminating medical devices and studied their ability to form biofilms and the prevalence of MDR strains in biofilms. Thus, they found that K. pneumoniae was frequently present in CVCs, urinary catheters, nephrostomy tubes, and abdominal drains. A total of 72.7% of K. pneumoniae strains were biofilm producers. They isolated more than one microorganism from some medical devices. Regarding antibiotic susceptibility, 59.2% of the isolated strains were MDR strains [28]. In our ward as well, Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most frequently isolated microorganism from patient secretions or from invasive medical devices fitted to critical patients (e.g., CVCs, abdominal drains) (39% of isolated strains belonged to K. pneumoniae). In our study, K. pneumoniae was isolated most frequently from tracheal secretions (tracheal aspirate) collected from mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Regarding antibiotic susceptibility, 91.9% of the K. pneumoniae strains isolated from our ward showed resistance to antibiotics (ESLB, MDR, XDR, and even PDR strains). The risk factors that caused multi-drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae to become prevalent in our department are the multitude of maneuvers and medical devices used, given that we are an Intensive Care Unit, as well as the frequent and long-term use of antibiotics and antimicrobials, the large number of days of hospitalization, patients with serious general conditions and the frequent presence of comorbidities in these patients. In addition, we take into consideration the epidemiological factor, the spread of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Europe and the prevalence of carbapenem resistance in Romania, along with Greece and Italy [9,10,11,12,13].
Many nosocomial infections are infections associated with biofilms at the level of catheters (hydrated biofilms): urinary tract infections associated with urinary catheters, bloodstream infections associated with central venous catheters, and respiratory infections associated with intubation tubes or tracheal cannulas. One of the most common and severe infections in critically intubated and ventilated Intensive Care Unit patients is ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This occurs in patients intubated and ventilated for at least 48 h. The etiology is usually bacterial, with Gram-negative bacteria (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Serratia marcescens) in 60% of cases and Gram-positive cocci (especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—MRSA) [33,43,44,45,46]. In our ward as well, the most frequent bacteria isolated from patients belonged to the class of Gram-negative bacteria, accounting for 76.7% of the total isolated bacteria. Among them, the most frequently encountered was Klebsiella pneumoniae (38.7% of the total bacteria isolated), followed by Acinetobacter baumannii (20.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.7%), Escherichia coli (5.6%), and Enterobacter cloacae (3.1%). These microorganisms were isolated from our critically ill patients dependent on invasive medical devices (endotracheal tubes, urinary tubes, drain tubes), where these bacteria can easily form biofilms. Gram-positive cocci were less involved in nosocomial infections in our intensive care unit (Enterococcus faecium 2.5% and Staphylococcus aureus 1.8%).
The materials from which catheters and invasive medical devices are made can influence the adhesion of bacteria and the formation of bacterial biofilms on them. Thorarinsdottir and colleagues (2020) described in their prospective study the importance of the material from which endotracheal tubes are made. Thus, they demonstrated that the noble-metal-coated polyvinil chloride (PVC) endotracheal tubes were associated with a lower rate of bacterial biofilm formation compared to plain PVC ones [70]. One of the essential factors in the adhesion of microorganisms to surfaces is hydrophobicity. Microbes tend to adhere to surfaces because of the nature of their cell walls. Hydrophobic cells have a stronger affinity for hydrophobic surfaces, whereas hydrophilic cells adhere more strongly to hydrophilic surfaces. Metal is hydrophilic and PVC is hydrophobic, which explains the stronger adherence of hydrophobic bacteria to PVC endotracheal probes compared to those composed of noble-metal-coated PVC. The high degree of adherence and biofilm formation of K. pneumoniae on abiotic surfaces may be attributed to the hydrophobic nature of the bacterial surface [71,72,73,74]. The probes used in our department are made of PVC. The most common microorganism isolated in our department was K. pneumoniae and it was most frequently present in tracheal secretions (42%) in mechanically ventilated patients.
MDR bacteria easily form biofilms on invasive medical devices (catheters, drain tubes, endotracheal tubes), but also on the hands of medical personnel and on surfaces in the hospital environment [28,32,33,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. Adhesion to the surface is a crucial step in bacterial growth. Bacterial resistance to antimicrobials (including antibiotics) occurs in the hospital environment because pathogens remaining after insufficient antibacterial treatment proliferate. Repeating this process leads to more bacteria becoming resistant to more antimicrobials, allowing proliferation, which, combined with their ability to form biofilms, makes them even more resistant. Bacteria develop defense mechanisms against antimicrobials either through genetic mutation or through the acquisition of genetic material through horizontal gene transfer within biofilms. On the other hand, the widespread use of antimicrobials leads to an increase in bacterial resistance [78,79,80].
Persistence in the hospital environment is a public health problem. Dry surface biofilms (DSB) present in the hospital environment (door handles, light switches, trolley handles, ceilings, curtains, keyboards, ventilator inlets, mattresses, and bed rails) are difficult to remove due to resistance to common disinfectants and antimicrobials and contribute to colonization, infection, and the spread of infections in the hospital [81,82,83,84,85]. In 2015, Hu and colleagues reported in their study that MDR bacteria are able to survive on contaminated surfaces despite disinfection with chlorine solution. They demonstrated that biofilms are polymicrobial in 93% of cases [83]. Polymicrobial biofilms are more resistant to disinfection than monomicrobial ones [84,86]. Dry surface biofilms, especially high-touch surfaces, constitute an important reservoir of pathogens [83]. In 2023, Centeleghe and colleagues published the first study confirming the ability of Klebsiella pneumoniae to survive for a long time on dry surfaces as a dry surface biofilm (DSB). The viability of this bacterium remains high at 4 weeks on a dry surface, even though culturability is low [87].

4. Materials and Methods

This study was performed with the approval of the Ethics Commission of the Sibiu County Emergency Clinical Hospital, Romania. During a period of one year, from January 2023 to December 2023, this cross-sectional study was conducted on patients admitted to the intensive care unit within the Sibiu County Emergency Clinical Hospital.

4.1. Sampling and Bacterial Isolation

The samples taken were tracheal aspirate (from intubated and ventilated patients), central venous catheter tip (extracted from the patient), pharyngeal exudate, superinfected surgical wound secretion, postoperative abscesses, fluid from drain tubes, urine culture (from patients with urine probes), blood culture, and peritoneal fluid from critically ill patients diagnosed with sepsis or septic shock admitted to our Intensive Care Unit.
Bacterial species were identified using classic biochemical tests (triple sugar iron TSI, motility indole urea MIU, Simmons citrate), Gram staining, and methylene blue, as well as automatic identification on the Vitek 2 Compact analyzer. In some situations, syndromic molecular biology tests from the upper respiratory tract were also used.

4.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

The antibiogram, or testing the sensitivity (susceptibility) of a bacterial strain to antimicrobial agents, is one of the most frequent examinations requested in the bacteriology laboratory. Technically, there are 2 possibilities for testing the antibacterial activity;
-
The Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion susceptibility test;
-
The dilution method—allows the precise establishment of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC).
Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method: the principle of the method consists of seeding the strain to be investigated on the surface of a solid Mueller Hinton medium and applying microtablets with antibiotic to its surface, according to the CLSI standard. They will diffuse into the agar from close to close, reaching lower and lower concentrations as they move away from the disk; the bacteria will grow in a “network” on the surface of the agar up to the area where the antibiotics will reach a concentration equal to the MIC. Their diameter is analyzed and compared with the diameters from the international standard (CLSI); depending on this, they fall into a certain category of sensitivity/resistance.
Vitek 2 Compact automatic antibiogram—allows identification and antibiotic sensitivity testing of bacteria and fungi isolated from clinical samples. The tests are carried out by means of cards available to the automatic system. For antibiotic sensitivity testing, the reading method of the device is turbidimetric. The device has software called Advanced Expert System Version 9.03 (AES), which is integrated into the system and validates the results of identification and antibiotic testing of bacteria by comparison with the extensive database of the advanced expert system (AES).
Antibiogram by broth microdilution method—the standardized method for testing the antibiotic sensitivity of germs. In our laboratory, it is used only for cases of MDR, XDR, and PDR infections. In the above-mentioned period, it was used only for colistin testing.
Strains that are resistant to at least one antibiotic from at least three antimicrobial classes were defined as MDR. Those resistant to at least one antibiotic from all antimicrobial categories, with the exception of one or two, were considered XDR, and strains resistant to all antimicrobial classes were defined as PDR.

5. Conclusions

MDR bacteria are frequently encountered in Intensive Care Units. Our Intensive Care Unit is facing this problem, too. MDR bacteria from the ESKAPE group were isolated from our patients with various infections in a high percentage (75.6% of the total bacteria isolated). By far, the most common microorganism in our ward was MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae (38.7%), followed by Acinetobacter baumannii (20.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.7%). Gram-positive cocci were less common: Enterococcus faecium was encountered in 2.5% of the samples (of which 50% were VRE) and Staphylococcus aureus in 1.8% of the total strains isolated from our patients (all strains were MRSA).
Enterobacteriaceae from the ESKAPE group were present mainly in secretions from tracheal aspirates, from intubated and mechanically ventilated patients, with ventilator-associated pneumonia being one of the most common nosocomial infections in Intensive Care Units, including our unit. Escherichia coli was mainly isolated from urine.
Gram-positive cocci were less involved in nosocomial infections in our Intensive Care Unit (Enterococcus faecium 2.5% and Staphylococcus aureus 1.8%). Enterococcus faecium was isolated from superinfected surgical wounds and urine, and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was equally present in tracheal aspirate, surgical wounds, and blood.
Most of the bacteria in the ESKAPE group were multidrug-resistant (less Enterobacter cloacae). There was no correlation between the antibiotic resistance profile and the anatomical site from which the bacteria was isolated. There were differences in the antibiotic resistance profile between different species of bacteria. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter pneumoniae showed the highest antibiotic resistance. A total of 91.9% of K. pneumoniae strains were ESLB, MDR, XDR, and PDR, while 91% of Acinetobacter baumannii strains were MDR and XDR strains. Resistance to all antibiotics tested (PDR) was present only in some strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae (8% of all K. pneumoniae strains) isolated from tracheal aspirates, central venous catheter tips, and superinfected surgical wounds. Increasing antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance among strains in the hospital environment raises serious concerns about limited treatment options.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.-S.B., R.B., C.M. and M.S.; Methodology, A.-S.B., R.B., C.O. and M.S.; Software, A.-S.B., B.I.V. and C.O.; Validation, A.-S.B., R.B., C.M., B.I.V., I.R.C., C.O. and M.S.; Formal analysis, A.-S.B., R.B. and M.S.; Investigation, A.-S.B., R.B., C.M., B.I.V., I.R.C., C.O. and M.S.; Resources, A.-S.B., R.B., C.M., B.I.V., I.R.C., C.O. and M.S.; Data curation, A.-S.B., R.B., B.I.V., I.R.C., C.O. and M.S.; Writing—original draft, A.-S.B. and R.B.; Writing—review and editing, A.-S.B., R.B., C.M., B.I.V., I.R.C., C.O. and M.S.; Visualization, A.-S.B., R.B., C.M., B.I.V., I.R.C., C.O. and M.S.; Supervision, M.S.; Project administration, A.-S.B. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of County Clinical Emergency Hospital of Sibiu, Romania, number 1971 from 29 January 2024.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The manuscript contains all the data. Further information can be provided at the request of the Editor in chief.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Abbreviations

AESAdvanced Expert System
β-LI beta-lactamase inhibitor
AMRAntimicrobial resistance
CLSIInstitute for Clinical and Laboratory Standards
CVCCentral venous catheter
CRKPCarbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae
DSBDry surface biofilms
EPSExtracellular polymeric substances
ESLBExtended spectrum beta-lactamase
GLASSGlobal Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System
ICUIntensive care unit
KPC-KPCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
MDRMultidrug-resistant
MICMinimum inhibitory concentration
MIUMotility indole urea
MRSAMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
PDRPandrug-resistant
PVCPolyvinil chloride
RResistance
SSensitivity
TMP/SMX Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole
TSITriple sugar iron
VAPVentilator-associated pneumonia
VISAVancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus
VREVancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium
VRSAVancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
WHOWorld Health Organization
XDRExtensively drug-resistant

References

  1. Ma, J.; Song, X.; Li, M.; Yu, Z.; Cheng, W.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, A.; Sun, H.; et al. Global spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: Epidemiological features, resistance mechanisms, detection and therapy. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 266, 127249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ranjbar, R.; Alam, M.; Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators (2022). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Evid. Based Nurs. 2023, 27, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Santajit, S.; Indrawattana, N. Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens. BioMed. Res. Int. 2016, 2475067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mahmood, H.Y.; Jamshidi, S.; Sutton, J.M.; Rahman, K.M. Current Advances in Developing Inhibitors of Bacterial Multidrug Efflux Pumps. Curr. Med. Chem. 2016, 23, 1062–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  5. Jean, S.S.; Lee, W.S.; Lam, C.; Hsu, C.W.; Chen, R.J.; Hsueh, P.R. Carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria: Current epidemics, antimicrobial susceptibility and treatment options. Future Microbiol. 2015, 10, 407–425, Erratum in Future Microbiol. 2017, 12, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Halat, D.H.; Moubareck, C.A. The Current Burden of Carbapenemases: Review of Significant Properties and Dissemination among Gram-Negative Bacteria. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  7. Aurilio, C.; Sansone, P.; Barbarisi, M.; Pota, V.; Giaccari, L.G.; Coppolino, F.; Barbarisi, A.; Passavanti, M.B.; Pace, M.C. Mechanisms of Action of Carbapenem Resistance. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  8. Acman, M.; Wang, R.; van Dorp, L.; Shaw, L.P.; Wang, Q.; Luhmann, N.; Yin, Y.; Sun, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, H.; et al. Role of mobile genetic elements in the global dissemination of the carbapenem resistance gene blaNDM. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  9. Mukherjee, S.; Bhadury, P.; Mitra, S.; Naha, S.; Saha, B.; Dutta, S.; Basu, S. Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae Causing Neonatal Bloodstream Infections: Emergence of NDM-1-Producing Hypervirulent ST11-K2 and ST15-K54 Strains Possessing pLVPK-Associated Markers. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e0412122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Suhay-Garcia, B.; Perez-Garcia, M.T. Present and future of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bassetti, M.; Peghin, M. How to manage KPC infections. Ther. Adv. Infect. Dis. 2020, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Europe 2017. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/surveillance-antimicrobial-resistance-europe-2017 (accessed on 2 March 2024).
  13. Carbapenem- and/or Colistin-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Greece: Molecular Follow-up Survey 2022. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/carbapenem-andor-colistin-resistant-klebsiella-pneumoniae-greece-molecular-follow (accessed on 4 March 2024).
  14. Kyriakidis, I.; Vasileiou, E.; Pana, Z.D.; Tragiannidis, A. Acinetobacter baumannii Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms. Pathogens 2021, 10, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Verdial, C.; Serrano, I.; Tavares, L.; Gil, S.; Oliveira, M. Mechanisms of Antibiotic and Biocide Resistance That Contribute to Pseudomonas aeruginosa Persistence in the Hospital Environment. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  16. Karaman, R.; Jubeh, B.; Breijyeh, Z. Resistance of Gram-Positive Bacteria to Current Antibacterial Agents and Overcoming Approaches. Molecules 2020, 25, 2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  17. Kakoullis, L.; Papachristodoulou, E.; Chra, P.; Panos, G. Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance in Important Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Pathogens and Novel Antibiotic Solutions. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  18. Tornimbene, B.; Eremin, S.; Abednego, R.; Abualas, E.O.; Boutiba, I.; Egwuenu, A.; Fuller, W.; Gahimbare, L.; Githii, S.; Kasambara, W.; et al. Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System on the African continent: Early implementation 2017–2019. Afr. J. Lab. Med. 2022, 11, 1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  19. Tsioutis, C.; Eichel, V.M.; Mutters, N.T. Transmission of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: The role of infection control. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76, i4–i11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Magiorakos, A.P.; Burns, K.; Baño, J.R.; Borg, M.; Daikos, G.; Dumpis, U.; Lucet, J.C.; Moro, M.L.; Tacconelli, E.; Simonsen, G.S.; et al. Infection prevention and control measures and tools for the prevention of entry of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae into healthcare settings: Guidance from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2017, 6, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Facility Guidance for Control of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)—November 2015 Update-CRE Toolkit. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/cre/CRE-guidance-508.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2024).
  22. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Health Care Facilities. 2017. Available online: https://www.who.int/infection-prevention/publications/guidelines-cre/en/ (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  23. Bassetti, M.; Giacobbe, D.; Giamarellou, H.; Viscoli, C.; Daikos, G.; Dimopoulos, G.; De Rosa, F.; Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.; Rossolini, G.; Righi, E.; et al. Management of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vintila, B.I.; Arseniu, A.M.; Morgovan, C.; Butuca, A.; Bîrluțiu, V.; Dobrea, C.M.; Rus, L.L.; Ghibu, S.; Bereanu, A.S.; Arseniu, R.; et al. A Real-World Study on the Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Relationship between Antibiotic Exposure and Clostridioides difficile Infection. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  25. Reyes, J.; Aguilar, A.C.; Caicedo, A. Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: Microbiology Key Points for Clinical Practice. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2019, 12, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Brunke, M.S.; Konrat, K.; Schaudinn, C.; Piening, B.; Pfeifer, Y.; Becker, L.; Schwebke, I.; Arvand, M. Tolerance of biofilm of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae involved in a duodenoscopy-associated outbreak to the disinfectant used in reprocessing. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2022, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dan, B.; Dai, H.; Zhou, D.; Tong, H.; Zhu, M. Relationship between Drug Resistance Characteristics and Biofilm Formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains. Infect. Drug Resist. 2023, ume 16, 985–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Folliero, V.; Franci, G.; Dell’annunziata, F.; Giugliano, R.; Foglia, F.; Sperlongano, R.; De Filippis, A.; Finamore, E.; Galdiero, M. Evaluation of Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm Production among Clinical Strain Isolated from Medical Devices. Int. J. Microbiol. 2021, 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Flemming, H.-C.; Wingender, J.; Szewzyk, U.; Steinberg, P.; Rice, S.A.; Kjelleberg, S. Biofilms: An emergent form of bacterial life. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Banerjee, D.; Shivapriya, P.M.; Gautam, P.K.; Misra, K.; Sahoo, A.K.; Samanta, S.K. A Review on Basic Biology of Bacterial Biofilm Infections and Their Treatments by Nanotechnology-Based Approaches. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B: Biol. Sci. 2019, 90, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramasamy, M.; Lee, J. Recent Nanotechnology Approaches for Prevention and Treatment of Biofilm-Associated Infections on Medical Devices. BioMed. Res. Int. 2016, 1851242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Maiti, P.; Chatterjee, S.; Kundu, A.; Dey, R. Biofilms on indwelling urologic devices: Microbes and antimicrobial management prospect. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Codru, I.R.; Sava, M.; Vintilă, B.I.; Bereanu, A.S.; Bîrluțiu, V. A Study on the Contributions of Sonication to the Identification of Bacteria Associated with Intubation Cannula Biofilm and the Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Medicina 2023, 59, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yin, W.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L.; He, J. Biofilms: The Microbial “Protective Clothing” in Extreme Environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chung, P.Y. The emerging problems of Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: Carbapenem resistance and biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2016, 363, fnw219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rahdar, H.A.; Malekabad, E.S.; Dadashi, A.-R.; Takei, E.; Keikha, M.; Kazemian, H.; Karami-Zarandi, M. Correlation between biofilm formation and carbapenem resistance among clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Ethiop. J. Health Sci. 1970, 29, 745–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Thoendel, M.; Kavanaugh, J.S.; Flack, C.E.; Horswill, A.R. Peptide signaling in the staphylococci. Chem. Rev. 2011, 111, 117–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  38. Rasamiravaka, T.; Labtani, Q.; Duez, P.; El Jaziri, M. The formation of biofilms by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A review of the natural and synthetic compounds interfering with control mechanisms. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 759348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  39. Jamal, M.; Ahmad, W.; Andleeb, S.; Jalil, F.; Imran, M.; Nawaz, M.A.; Hussain, T.; Ali, M.; Rafiq, M.; Kamil, M.A. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2018, 81, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Schulze, A.; Mitterer, F.; Pombo, J.P.; Schild, S. Biofilms by bacterial human pathogens: Clinical relevance—Development, composition and regulation—Therapeutical strategies. Microb. Cell. 2021, 8, 28–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  41. Tambyah, P.A. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections: Diagnosis and prophylaxis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2004, 24 (Suppl. S1), S44–S48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Singh, P.K.; Schaefer, A.L.; Parsek, M.R.; Moninger, T.O.; Welsh, M.J.; Greenberg, E.P. Quorum-sensing signals indicate that cystic fibrosis lungs are infected with bacterial biofilms. Nature 2000, 407, 762–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Jones, R.N. Microbial etiologies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51 (Suppl. S1), S81–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. American Thoracic Society Documents. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 171, 388–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Melsen, W.G.; Rovers, M.; Koeman, M.; Bonten, M.J.M. Estimating the attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia from randomized prevention studies. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 39, 2736–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mohammadi, M.; Saffari, M.; Siadat, S.D.; Hejazi, S.H.; Shayestehpour, M.; Motallebi, M.; Eidi, M. Isolation, characterization, therapeutic potency, and genomic analysis of a novel bacteriophage vB_KshKPC-M against carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (CRKP) isolated from Ventilator-associated pneumoniae (VAP) infection of COVID-19 patients. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2023, 22, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bassetti, M.; Carnelutti, A.; Peghin, M. Patient specific risk stratification for antimicrobial resistance and possible treatment strategies in gram-negative bacterial infections. Expert Rev. Anti-Infect. Ther. 2017, 15, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vasoo, S.; Barreto, J.N.; Tosh, P.K. Emerging issues in gram-negative bacterial resistance: An update for the practicing clinician. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2015, 90, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Lee, C.-R.; Lee, J.H.; Park, K.S.; Kim, Y.B.; Jeong, B.C.; Lee, S.H. Global Dissemination of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: Epidemiology, Genetic Context, Treatment Options, and Detection Methods. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Wang, Q.; Chen, M.; Ou, Q.; Zheng, L.; Chen, X.; Mao, G.; Fang, J.; Jin, D.; Tang, X. Carbapenem-resistant hypermucoviscous Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolates from a tertiary hospital in China: Antimicrobial susceptibility, resistance phenotype, epidemiological characteristics, microbial virulence, and risk factors. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 1083009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Bereanu, A.-S.; Vintilă, B.I.; Bereanu, R.; Codru, I.R.; Hașegan, A.; Olteanu, C.; Săceleanu, V.; Sava, M. TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings and Inactivation of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae Biofilm—Opportunities and Challenges. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hasegan, A.; Totan, M.; Antonescu, E.; Bumbu, A.G.; Pantis, C.; Furau, C.; (Urducea), C.B.; Grigore, N. Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infections in Children and Changes in Sensitivity to Antibiotics of E. coli Strains. Rev. de Chim. 2019, 70, 3788–3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pourmehdiabadi, A.; Nobakht, M.S.; Balajorshari, B.H.; Yazdi, M.R.; Amini, K. Investigating the effects of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the formation of biofilm and persister cells in Klebsiella pneumoniae. J. Basic Microbiol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Araújo, B.F.; Ferreira, M.L.; de Campos, P.A.; Royer, S.; Gonçalves, I.R.; Batistão, D.W.d.F.; Fernandes, M.R.; Cerdeira, L.T.; de Brito, C.S.; Lincopan, N.; et al. Hypervirulence and biofilm production in KPC-2-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae CG258 isolated in Brazil. J. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Stallbaum, L.R.; Pruski, B.B.; Amaral, S.C.; de Freitas, S.B.; Wozeak, D.R.; Hartwig, D.D. Phenotypic and molecular evaluation of biofilm formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) isolates obtained from a hospital of Pelotas, RS, Brazil. J. Med. Microbiol. 2021, 70, 001451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Santiago, A.J.; Burgos-Garay, M.L.; Kartforosh, L.; Mazher, M.; Donlan, R.M. Bacteriophage treatment of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a multispecies biofilm: A potential biocontrol strategy for healthcare facilities. AIMS Microbiol. 2020, 6, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Yazgan, B.; Türkel, I.; Güçkan, R.; Kılınç, K.; Yıldırım, T. Comparison of biofilm formation and efflux pumps in ESBL and carbapenemase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries 2018, 12, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Booq, R.Y.; Abutarboush, M.H.; Alolayan, M.A.; Huraysi, A.A.; Alotaibi, A.N.; Alturki, M.I.; Alshammari, M.K.; Bakr, A.A.; Alquait, A.A.; Tawfik, E.A.; et al. Identification and Characterization of Plasmids and Genes from Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Makkah Province, Saudi Arabia. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. D’apolito, D.; Arena, F.; Conte, V.; De Angelis, L.H.; Di Mento, G.; Carreca, A.P.; Cuscino, N.; Russelli, G.; Iannolo, G.; Barbera, F.; et al. Phenotypical and molecular assessment of the virulence potential of KPC-3-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST392 clinical isolates. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 240, 126551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Liu, Y.; Liu, P.-P.; Wang, L.-H.; Wei, D.-D.; Wan, L.-G.; Zhang, W. Capsular Polysaccharide Types and Virulence-Related Traits of Epidemic KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates in a Chinese University Hospital. Microb. Drug Resist. 2017, 23, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mahmud, Z.H.; Uddin, S.Z.; Moniruzzaman, M.; Ali, S.; Hossain, M.; Islam, T.; Costa, D.T.D.; Islam, M.R.; Islam, S.; Hassan, Z.; et al. Healthcare Facilities as Potential Reservoirs of Antimicrobial Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: An Emerging Concern to Public Health in Bangladesh. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Silva, N.B.S.; Alves, P.G.V.; Marques, L.d.A.; Silva, S.F.; Faria, G.d.O.; de Araújo, L.B.; Pedroso, R.d.S.; Penatti, M.P.A.; Menezes, R.d.P.; Röder, D.v.D.d.B. Quantification of biofilm produced by clinical, environment and hands’ isolates Klebsiella species using colorimetric and classical methods. J. Microbiol. Methods 2021, 185, 106231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Papalini, C.; Sabbatini, S.; Monari, C.; Mencacci, A.; Francisci, D.; Perito, S.; Pasticci, M.B. In vitro antibacterial activity of ceftazidime/avibactam in combination against planktonic and biofilm carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from blood. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 23, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kerbauy, G.; Vivan, A.C.; Simões, G.C.; Simionato, A.S.; Pelisson, M.; Vespero, E.C.; Costa, S.F.; Andrade, C.G.d.J.; Barbieri, D.M.; Mello, J.C.; et al. Effect of a Metalloantibiotic Produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2016, 17, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Perez-Palacios, P.; Gual-De-Torrella, A.; Delgado-Valverde, M.; Oteo-Iglesias, J.; Hidalgo-Díaz, C.; Pascual, Á.; Fernández-Cuenca, F. Transfer of plasmids harbouring blaOXA-48-like carbapenemase genes in biofilm-growing Klebsiella pneumoniae: Effect of biocide exposure. Microbiol. Res. 2021, 254, 126894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Dey, D.; Ghosh, S.; Ray, R.; Hazra, B. Polyphenolic Secondary Metabolites Synergize the Activity of Commercial Antibiotics against Clinical Isolates of β-Lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Phytotherapy Res. 2015, 30, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bai, J.; Liu, Y.; Kang, J.; Song, Y.; Yin, D.; Wang, S.; Guo, Q.; Wang, J.; Duan, J. Antibiotic resistance and virulence characteristics of four carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strains coharbouring blaKPC and blaNDM based on whole genome sequences from a tertiary general teaching hospital in central China between 2019 and 2021. Microb. Pathog. 2023, 175, 105969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Larcher, R.; Laffont-Lozes, P.; Naciri, T.; Bourgeois, P.-M.; Gandon, C.; Magnan, C.; Pantel, A.; Sotto, A. Continuous infusion of meropenem–vaborbactam for a KPC-3-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection in a critically ill patient with augmented renal clearance. Infection 2023, 51, 1835–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zhou, C.; Zhang, H.; Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, B.; Lin, Y.; Shen, F. Within-Host Resistance and Virulence Evolution of a Hypervirulent Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae ST11 Under Antibiotic Pressure. Infect. Drug Resist. 2023, ume 16, 7255–7270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Thorarinsdottir, H.R.; Kander, T.; Holmberg, A.; Petronis, S.; Klarin, B. Biofilm formation on three different endotracheal tubes: A prospective clinical trial. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Di Martino, P.; Cafferini, N.; Joly, B.; Darfeuille-Michaud, A. Klebsiella pneumoniae type 3 pili facilitate adherence and biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces. Res. Microbiol. 2003, 154, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. MladenoviĆ, K.G.; GrujoviĆ, M.Ž.; NikodijeviĆ, D.D.; ČomiĆ, L.R. The hydrophobicity of enterobacteria and their co-aggregation with Enterococcus faecalis isolated from Serbian cheese. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2020, 39, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  73. Krasowska, A.; Sigler, K. How microorganisms use hydrophobicity and what does this mean for human needs? Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  74. Pintavirooj, C.; Vongmanee, N.; Sukjee, W.; Sangma, C.; Visitsattapongse, S. Biosensors for Klebsiella pneumoniae with Molecularly Imprinted Polymer (MIP) Technique. Sensors 2022, 22, 4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sabença, C.; Costa, E.; Sousa, S.; Barros, L.; Oliveira, A.; Ramos, S.; Igrejas, G.; Torres, C.; Poeta, P. Evaluation of the Ability to Form Biofilms in KPC-Producing and ESBL-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolated from Clinical Samples. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ochońska, D.; Ścibik, L.; Brzychczy-Włoch, M. Biofilm Formation of Clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains Isolated from Tracheostomy Tubes and Their Association with Antimicrobial Resistance, Virulence and Genetic Diversity. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vintila, B.I.; Arseniu, A.M.; Morgovan, C.; Butuca, A.; Sava, M.; Bîrluțiu, V.; Rus, L.L.; Ghibu, S.; Bereanu, A.S.; Codru, I.R.; et al. A Pharmacovigilance Study Regarding the Risk of Antibiotic-Associated Clostridioides difficile Infection Based on Reports from the EudraVigilance Database: Analysis of Some of the Most Used Antibiotics in Intensive Care Units. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Dutt, Y.; Dhiman, R.; Singh, T.; Vibhuti, A.; Gupta, A.; Pandey, R.P.; Raj, V.S.; Chang, C.M.; Priyadarshini, A. The Association between Biofilm Formation and Antimicrobial Resistance with Possible Ingenious Bio-Remedial Approaches. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  79. Urban-Chmiel, R.; Marek, A.; Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Wieczorek, K.; Dec, M.; Nowaczek, A.; Osek, J. Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria-A Review. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  80. Pontes, J.T.C.; Toledo Borges, A.B.; Roque-Borda, C.A.; Pavan, F.R. Antimicrobial Peptides as an Alternative for the Eradication of Bacterial Biofilms of Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  81. Vickery, K.; Deva, A.; Jacombs, A.; Allan, J.; Valente, P.; Gosbell, I. Presence of biofilm containing viable multiresistant organisms despite terminal cleaning on clinical surfaces in an intensive care unit. J. Hosp. Infect. 2012, 80, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ledwoch, K.; Dancer, S.; Otter, J.; Kerr, K.; Roposte, D.; Rushton, L.; Weiser, R.; Mahenthiralingam, E.; Muir, D.; Maillard, J.-Y. Beware biofilm! Dry biofilms containing bacterial pathogens on multiple healthcare surfaces; a multi-centre study. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 100, e47–e56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Costa, D.; Johani, K.; Melo, D.; Lopes, L.; Lima, L.L.; Tipple, A.; Hu, H.; Vickery, K. Biofilm contamination of high-touched surfaces in intensive care units: Epidemiology and potential impacts. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hu, H.; Johani, K.; Gosbell, I.; Jacombs, A.; Almatroudi, A.; Whiteley, G.; Deva, A.; Jensen, S.; Vickery, K. Intensive care unit environmental surfaces are contaminated by multidrug-resistant bacteria in biofilms: Combined results of conventional culture, pyrosequencing, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal laser microscopy. J. Hosp. Infect. 2015, 91, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ababneh, Q.; Abulaila, S.; Jaradat, Z. Isolation of extensively drug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii from environmental surfaces inside intensive care units. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021, 50, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Maillard, J.-Y.; Centeleghe, I. How biofilm changes our understanding of cleaning and disinfection. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2023, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Centeleghe, I.; Norville, P.; Hughes, L.; Maillard, J.-Y. Klebsiella pneumoniae survives on surfaces as a dry biofilm. Am. J. Infect. Control 2023, 51, 1157–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 13 00400 g001
Figure 1. Microorganisms isolated from samples collected from patients with healthcare-associated infections in the Intensive Care Unit within the Sibiu County Emergency Clinical Hospital between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023—(x axis—number of positive samples).
Figure 1. Microorganisms isolated from samples collected from patients with healthcare-associated infections in the Intensive Care Unit within the Sibiu County Emergency Clinical Hospital between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023—(x axis—number of positive samples).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g001
Antibiotics 13 00400 g002
Figure 2. The percentage of MDR strains from the total number of bacterial strains isolated from samples collected from patients with healthcare-associated infections between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive care unit of Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant), S (sensitivity).
Figure 2. The percentage of MDR strains from the total number of bacterial strains isolated from samples collected from patients with healthcare-associated infections between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive care unit of Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant), S (sensitivity).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g002
Antibiotics 13 00400 g003
Figure 3. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of K. pneumoniae isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor).
Figure 3. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of K. pneumoniae isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g003
Antibiotics 13 00400 g004
Figure 4. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of Acinetobacter Baumannii isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania). β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor), TMP/SMX (Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole).
Figure 4. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of Acinetobacter Baumannii isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania). β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor), TMP/SMX (Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g004
Antibiotics 13 00400 g005
Figure 5. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of P. aeruginosa isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor).
Figure 5. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of P. aeruginosa isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g005
Antibiotics 13 00400 g006
Figure 6. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of E. coli isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor), TMP/SMX (Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole).
Figure 6. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of E. coli isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor), TMP/SMX (Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g006
Antibiotics 13 00400 g007
Figure 7. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of Enterobacter cloacae isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor), TMP/SMX (Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole).
Figure 7. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of Enterobacter cloacae isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance), β-LI (beta-lactamase inhibitor), TMP/SMX (Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g007
Antibiotics 13 00400 g008
Figure 8. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of Enterococcus faecium isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance).
Figure 8. Results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of Enterococcus faecium isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g008
Antibiotics 13 00400 g009
Figure 9. Results of antibiotic susceptibility Staphylococcus aureus isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance).
Figure 9. Results of antibiotic susceptibility Staphylococcus aureus isolated from critically ill patients between January and December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) S (sensitivity), R (resistance).
Antibiotics 13 00400 g009
Table 1. K. pneumoniae strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant), XDR (extensively drug-resistant), PDR (pandrug-resistant).
Table 1. K. pneumoniae strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant), XDR (extensively drug-resistant), PDR (pandrug-resistant).
Klebsiella pneumoniae62
tracheal aspirate26
without resistance pattern5
Positive-MDR4
Positive-ESBL3
Positive-PDR2
Positive-XDR12
Catheter-tip5
Positive-PDR2
Positive-XDR2
Positive -MDR1
Pharyngeal exudate2
Positive-XDR2
Surgical wound, abscess, ulcer, etc.8
Positive-PDR1
Positive-XDR6
Positive MDR1
Blood11
Positive-ESLB2
Positive-MDR1
Positive-XDR8
Urine10
Positive-MDR4
Positive-XDR6
Table 2. Acinetobacter baumannii strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant), XDR (extensively drug-resistant), PDR (pandrug-resistant).
Table 2. Acinetobacter baumannii strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant), XDR (extensively drug-resistant), PDR (pandrug-resistant).
Acinetobacter baumannii33
tracheal aspirate18
without resistance pattern3
Positive-MDR4
Positive-XDR11
Pharyngeal exudate5
Positive-MDR1
Positive-XDR4
Peritoneal fluid2
Positive-MDR1
Positive-XDR1
Surgical wound, abscess, ulcer, etc.3
Positive-MDR1
Positive-XDR2
Blood2
Positive-XDR2
Urine3
Positive-XDR3
Table 3. P. aeruginosa strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant).
Table 3. P. aeruginosa strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MDR (multidrug-resistant).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa14
Tracheal aspirate9
without resistance pattern4
Positive-MDR5
Pharyngeal exudate1
without resistance pattern1
Surgical wounds, abscesses, ulcers, etc.3
without resistance pattern2
Positive-MDR1
Urine1
without resistance pattern1
Table 4. Escherichia coli strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) ESLB (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase), XDR (extensively drug-resistant).
Table 4. Escherichia coli strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) ESLB (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase), XDR (extensively drug-resistant).
Escherichia coli9
Tracheal aspirate3
without resistance pattern1
Positive-ESBL1
Positive-XDR1
Surgical wounds, abscesses, ulcers, etc.1
without resistance pattern1
Urine5
Positive-ESBL5
Table 5. Enterobacter cloacae strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) ESLB (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase).
Table 5. Enterobacter cloacae strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) ESLB (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase).
Enterobacter cloacae5
Tracheal aspirate3
without resistance pattern2
Positive-ESBL1
Surgical wounds, abscesses, ulcers, etc.1
without resistance pattern1
Blood1
without resistance pattern1
Table 6. Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) VRE (Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium).
Table 6. Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) VRE (Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium).
Enterococcus faecium4
Surgical wounds, abscesses, ulcers, etc.3
negative VRE1
positive-VRE2
Urine1
negative VRE1
Table 7. Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
Table 7. Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from critically ill patients between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (Intensive Care Unit of the Sibiu County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Romania) MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
Staphylococcus aureus3
Tracheal aspirate
Positive-MRSA		1
Blood
Positive-MRSA		1
Surgical wounds, abscesses, ulcers, etc.
Positive-MRSA		1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bereanu, A.-S.; Bereanu, R.; Mohor, C.; Vintilă, B.I.; Codru, I.R.; Olteanu, C.; Sava, M. Prevalence of Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance of ESKAPE Group Bacteria Isolated from Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a County Emergency Hospital in Romania. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13050400

AMA Style

Bereanu A-S, Bereanu R, Mohor C, Vintilă BI, Codru IR, Olteanu C, Sava M. Prevalence of Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance of ESKAPE Group Bacteria Isolated from Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a County Emergency Hospital in Romania. Antibiotics. 2024; 13(5):400. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13050400

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bereanu, Alina-Simona, Rareș Bereanu, Cosmin Mohor, Bogdan Ioan Vintilă, Ioana Roxana Codru, Ciprian Olteanu, and Mihai Sava. 2024. "Prevalence of Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance of ESKAPE Group Bacteria Isolated from Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a County Emergency Hospital in Romania" Antibiotics 13, no. 5: 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13050400

APA Style

Bereanu, A. -S., Bereanu, R., Mohor, C., Vintilă, B. I., Codru, I. R., Olteanu, C., & Sava, M. (2024). Prevalence of Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance of ESKAPE Group Bacteria Isolated from Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a County Emergency Hospital in Romania. Antibiotics, 13(5), 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13050400

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop