Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of pathogens in urine cultures with significant bacteriuria from inpatients and outpatients, and to detect extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production rates among Enterobacteriaceae and their antimicrobial susceptibilities in our hospital.

Methods: Urine specimens sent from various units to microbiology laboratory between January 2016 and December 2017 were examined, and urines with pyuria and yielding a significant bacteriuria were included in the study. The identification, susceptibility tests , and ESBL production of the bacteria were determined by the VITEK® 2 automated system.

Results: A total of 4352 urine specimens showed significant bacteriuria. The most commonly isolated microorganisms were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp. and Enterococcus spp. ESBL positivity was found in 17.9% of Enterobacteriaceae, and it was detected more frequently in bacteria isolated from males, inpatients and patients over 65 years of age (p<0.001). In the presence of ESBL positivity, sensitivity rates of nearly all antibiotics except fosfomycin and nitrofurantoin were significantly low. When antibiotic sensitivity rates of E. coli and Klebsiella spp. were compared between the outpatients and inpatients, antibiotic sensitivity rates in inpatients were low. Nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin were the most active antibiotics for both E. coli and Klebsiella spp. in outpatients; whereas amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and ciprofloxacin were the less active ones. The most active parenteral antibiotics against E. coli and Klebsiella spp. were piperacillin-tazobactam, carbapenems and aminoglycosides.

Conclusions: Due to the differences in the distribution of microorganisms causing urinary tract infections in outpatients and inpatients, and their changing antibiotic susceptibility patterns, monitoring microbiological data in certain time periods will guide clinicians in terms of the empiric treatment plans.

Klimik Dergisi 2019; 32(3): 233-9.

Cite this article as: Karamanlıoğlu D, Aysert-Yıldız P, Kaya M, Sarı N. [Extended-spectrum β-lactamase production rates and antibiotic susceptibilities among Enterobacteriaceae isolated from urine]. Klimik Derg. 2019; 32(3): 233-9. Turkish.

Volume 37, Issue 1 Volume 36, Issue 4 Volume 36, Supplement 1 Volume 36, Issue 3 Volume 36, Issue 2 Volume 36, Issue 1 Volume 35, Issue 4 Volume 35, Issue 3 Volume 35, Issue 2 Volume 35, Issue 1 Volume 34, Issue 3 Volume 34, Issue 2 Volume 34, Issue 1 Volume 33, Issue 3 Volume 33, Issue 2 Volume 33, Issue 1 Volume 32, Issue 3 Volume 32, Supplement 1 Volume 32, Supplement 2 Volume 32, Issue 2 Volume 32, Issue 1 Volume 31, Issue 3 Volume 31, Issue 2 Volume 31, Supplement 1 Volume 31, Issue 1 Volume 30, Issue 3 Volume 30, Issue 2 Volume 30, Supplement 1 Volume 30, Issue 1 Volume 29, Issue 3 Volume 29, Issue 2 Volume 29, Issue 1 Volume 28, Supplement 1 Volume 28, Issue 3 Volume 28, Issue 2 Volume 28, Issue 1 Volume 27, Supplement 1 Volume 27, Issue 3 Volume 27, Issue 2 Volume 27, Issue 1 Volume 26, Issue 3 Volume 26, Supplement 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 Volume 26, Issue 1 Volume 25, Issue 3 Volume 25, Issue 2 Volume 25, Issue 1 Volume 24, Issue 3 Volume 24, Issue 2 Volume 24, Issue 1 Volume 23, Issue 3 Volume 23, Issue 2 Volume 23, Issue 1 Volume 22, Issue 3 Volume 22, Issue 2 Volume 22, Issue 1 Volume 21, Issue 3 Volume 21, Supplement 2 Volume 21, Supplement 1 Volume 21, Issue 2 Volume 21, Issue 1 Volume 20, Issue 3 Volume 20, Supplement 2 Volume 20, Issue 2 Volume 20, Issue 1 Volume 20, Supplement 1 Volume 19, Issue 3 Volume 19, Issue 2 Volume 19, Issue 1 Volume 18, Issue 3 Volume 18, Supplement 1 Volume 18, Issue 2 Volume 18, Issue 1 Volume 17, Issue 3 Volume 17, Issue 2 Volume 17, Issue 1 Volume 16, Issue 3 Volume 16, Issue 2 Volume 16, Issue 1 Volume 1, Supplement 1 Volume 15, Issue 3 Volume 15, Issue 2 Volume 15, Issue 1 Volume 14, Issue 3 Volume 14, Issue 2 Volume 14, Issue 1 Volume 13, Issue 3 Volume 13, Issue 2 Volume 13, Supplement 1 Volume 13, Issue 1 Volume 12, Issue 3 Volume 12, Issue 2 Volume 12, Issue 1 Volume 11, Issue 3 Volume 11, Issue 2 Volume 11, Supplement 1 Volume 11, Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 3 Volume 10, Issue 2 Volume 10, Issue 1 Volume 9, Issue 3 Volume 9, Issue 2 Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 8, Issue 3 Volume 8, Issue 2 Volume 8, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 3 Volume 7, Issue 1 Volume 7, Issue 2 Volume 7, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 3 Volume 5, Issue 1 Volume 5, Issue 2 Volume 5, Issue 3 Volume 6, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 2 Volume 1, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 3 Volume 1, Issue 1