J Med Microbiol Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Udo, E. E.
Right arrow Articles by Chugh, T. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Udo, E. E.
Right arrow Articles by Chugh, T. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Udo, E. E.
Right arrow Articles by Chugh, T. D.
J Med Microbiol 52 (2003), 163-168; DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.04949-0
© 2003 Society for General Microbiology
ISSN 0022-2615

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY

Species prevalence and antibacterial resistance of enterococci isolated in Kuwait hospitals

Edet E. Udo1, Noura Al-Sweih1, Oludotun A. Phillips2 and Tulsi D. Chugh1

Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine1 and Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy2, Kuwait University, PO Box 24923, Safat 13110, Kuwait

Correspondence Edet E. Udo edet{at}hsc.kuniv.edu.kw

Received 19 April 2002 Accepted 1 October 2002

This study investigated the species prevalence and antibacterial resistance among enterococci isolated in Kuwait hospitals. They consisted of 415 isolates of Enterococcus faecalis (85.3 %), Enterococcus faecium (7.7 %), Enterococcus casseliflavus (4.0 %), Enterococcus avium (1.2 %), Enterococcus durans (1.0 %), Enterococcus gallinarium (0.5 %) and Enterococcus bovis (0.2 %) isolated from urine (36.6 %), blood (10.4 %), wound swabs (11.0 %), stool samples (12.0 %), high vaginal swabs (9.0 %), endocervical swabs (3.0 %) and miscellaneous sources (18.0 %). All of them were susceptible to linezolid. Fifty-two (12.5 %) isolates were ampicillin resistant but none of them produced ß-lactamase. They were resistant to erythromycin (63.3 %), tetracycline (60.5 %), ciprofloxacin (40.0 %), chloramphenicol (28.0 %), vancomycin (2.6 %), and teicoplanin (2.6 %). Fourteen, 19 and 20 % of them expressed high-level resistance to gentamicin, kanamycin and streptomycin, respectively. All of the vancomycin-resistant strains carried the vanA phenotype and genotype. There was no evidence of clonal spread of the vancomycin-resistant isolates.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL J MED MICROBIOL MICROBIOLOGY J GEN VIROL ALL SGM JOURNALS
Copyright © 2003 Society for General Microbiology.