CO-EXISTENCE OF BETA LACTAMASES (ESBL AND MBL) IN Pseudomonas aeruginosa ISOLATES FROM PUS SAMPLES

S. SOUMYA¹*, MAHANTESH B. NAGMOTI^2
1Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Belagavi
²Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Belagavi
* Corresponding Author : soumya86.s@gmail.com

Received : 09-12-2017     Accepted : 15-12-2017     Published : 28-12-2017
Volume : 9     Issue : 12       Pages : 981 - 983
Int J Microbiol Res 9.12 (2017):981-983

Keywords : Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Beta lactamases, ESBL, MBL
Academic Editor : Rebah Najah Jabbar, Dr Manodeep Sen
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : We thank our institute Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Belagavi and Department of Microbiology for permitting to carry out this study
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Background: Resistance to broad spectrum beta lactamase mainly those mediated by ESBL’s and MBL’s enzymes is an increasing problem worldwide. Detection of their prevalence and co-existence is essential so as to formulate an effective antibiotic policy and hospital infection control measures. Thus this present study was undertaken to determine the prevalence and co-existence of ESBL & MBL in P.aeruginosa isolates from pus samples. Material and methods: A total of 1100 pus samples were screened, of which 90 isolates of P.aeruginosa were isolated and subjected for ESBL and MBL phenotypic tests. Double disc synergy test and Imipenem (IMP) - EDTA combined disc test were used for their detection respectively. Results: Out of the 90 P.aeruginosa isolated from pus samples, 55(61%) were Cefazidime sensitive and 35(38.8%) were resistant. Of the 35 P.aeruginosa resistant to ceftazidime, DDST detected 16(45.7%).65(72.2%) were Imipenem sensitive and 25(27.7%) were resistant. Of the 25 P.aeruginosa resistant to Imipenem, IMP-EDTA CDT detected 16(64%) of ESBL producers.12(13.3%) showed Resistance to both Imipenem and Ceftazidime and only 6 of the 12 showed Co-existence of ESBL and MBL accounting for 50% of them and 6.6% of the total 90 P. aeruginosa isolates. Conclusion: There is a need for screening tests for detection of not only individual occurrence of different beta lactamases but also their co-existence in the same organism to be made a mandatory routine in all microbiology laboratories.

1. Livermore D.M. (1995) ClinMicrobiol Rev, 8, 557-84.
2. Deshmukh D.G., Damle A.S., Bajaj J.K. and Bhakre J.B. (2011) Journal of Laboratory Physicians., 3(2), 93-97.
3. Bradford P. A. (2001) ClinMicrobiol Rev, 14(4), 933-51.
4. Bush K. (1998) Clin Infect Dis, 27(Suppl 1), S48-53.
5. Khan M.K.R., Thukral S.S. and Gaind R. (2008) Ind J Med Microbial., 26(1), 58-61.
6. Livermore D.M. (2009) J Antimicrob Chemother., 64, 29-36.
7. Thomson K.S. (2010) J ClinMicrobiol, 48, 1019-25.
8. Govan J.R.W. (2006) Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, Burkholderia. In: Colle JG, Fraser AG, Marimon BP, Simmons A, eds. Mackie & McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology. 14th ed. London:Churchill Livingstone;. p. 413-24.
9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), (2017) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twentieth Informational Supplement, M100 27th ed., pp 234.
10. Aggarwal R., Chaudhary U. and Bala K. (2008) Indian J Pathol Microbiol., 51(2), 222-4.
11. Behera B., Mathur P., Das A., Kapil A. and Sharma V. (2008) Indian J Med Microbiol., 26, 233-7.
12. Hancock R.E. and Speert D.P. (2000) Drug Resist Updat., 3(4), 247-255.
13. Somily A.M., Absar M.M., Arshad M.Z., Al Aska A.I., Shakoor Z.A., Fatani A.J., Siddiqui Y.M. and Murray T.S. (2012) Saudi Med J., 33(7), 750-5.
14. Varaiya A., Kulkarni M., Bhalekar P. and Dogra J. (2008) Indian J PatholMicrobiol, 51(2), 200-314.
15. Padiyath S., Hemachandra C., Rao P.S. & Kotigadde S. (2013) J Pharm Biomed Sci., 33(33), 1506-1515.
16. Gupta V. (2008) Expert OpinInvestig Drugs, 17(2),131-43.15.
17. Aggarwal R., Chaudhary U. and Bala K. (2008) Indian J Pathol Microbiol, 51(2), 222- 24.
18. Rudresh S.M. and Nagrathnamma T. (2011) Indian J Med Res., 133, 116-8.
19. Rawat V., Singhai M. and Verma P.K. (2013) J Lab Physicians, 5, 21-5.
20. Dutta H., Nath R. and Saikia L. (2014) Indian J Med Res., 139, 643-5.
21. Gencer S., Akoznur, Benzonana N., Batirel A. and Ozer S. (2002) Ann ClinMicrobiol Antimicrobial, 1:2. doi:10.1186/1476-0711-1- 2.
22. Oberoi L., Singh N., Sharma P., Aggarwal A. (2013) J Clin. Diagn Res., 7(1), 70-3.
23. Umadevi S., Joseph N.M., Kumari K., Easow J.M., Kumar S. and Stephan S. (2011) Braz J Microbiol., 42, 1284-88.
24. Picão R.C., Poirel L., Gales A.C. and Nordmann P. (2009) Antimicrob Agents Chemother., 53(9), 3908-13. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00453-09.
25. Shahandeh Z., Sadighian F. and Rekabpou K.B. (2015) Int. J Health Syst Disaster Manage, 3, 74-8.
26. Shoorashetty R.M., Nagarathnamma T. and Prathibha J. (2011) Indian J Med Microbiol., 29, 297-301.