Background. The WHO recognized antimicrobial resistance as a growing global health threat with a wide variability across Europe: in Italy these rates are higher than in other countries. The aim of our study was to detect antimicrobial resistance on the hands of healthcare workers and on surfaces around the patient, to assess the variability between levels of bacterial contamination on these surfaces and to compare the results with those achieved six years ago. Material and methods. The study was conducted from June 2017 to May 2018 using contact slides for surfaces and active sampling for air. We used automated biochemical methods to identify microorganisms; antibiograms were performed in compliance with the EUCAST expert rules. Results. We analyzed 3,760 samples, 16.17% were found positive and 34 % of these were antimicrobial-resistant. On analyzing the isolated Staphylococci, 39% were multidrug-resistant and 5% extensively drug-resistant. A 30% of the Enterococcus faecalis isolates were resistant to gentamycin and vancomycin. We found Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates resistant to ceftriaxone, cefoxitin, mecillinam and imipenem. A 7% and 8% of the Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, respectively, were resistant to gentamicin, imipenem, and ceftazidime Conclusions. These findings are in line with the international literature, confirming that antimicrobial resistance is also steadily growing in Italy with rates varied for the different pathogens.

Drug-resistant bacteria on hands of healthcare workers and in the patient area: an environmental survey in Southern Italy's hospital

La Fauci, V.
Primo
;
Costa, G. B.;Genovese, C.;Palamara, M. A . R.;Alessi, V.;Squeri, R.
Ultimo
2019-01-01

Abstract

Background. The WHO recognized antimicrobial resistance as a growing global health threat with a wide variability across Europe: in Italy these rates are higher than in other countries. The aim of our study was to detect antimicrobial resistance on the hands of healthcare workers and on surfaces around the patient, to assess the variability between levels of bacterial contamination on these surfaces and to compare the results with those achieved six years ago. Material and methods. The study was conducted from June 2017 to May 2018 using contact slides for surfaces and active sampling for air. We used automated biochemical methods to identify microorganisms; antibiograms were performed in compliance with the EUCAST expert rules. Results. We analyzed 3,760 samples, 16.17% were found positive and 34 % of these were antimicrobial-resistant. On analyzing the isolated Staphylococci, 39% were multidrug-resistant and 5% extensively drug-resistant. A 30% of the Enterococcus faecalis isolates were resistant to gentamycin and vancomycin. We found Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates resistant to ceftriaxone, cefoxitin, mecillinam and imipenem. A 7% and 8% of the Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, respectively, were resistant to gentamicin, imipenem, and ceftazidime Conclusions. These findings are in line with the international literature, confirming that antimicrobial resistance is also steadily growing in Italy with rates varied for the different pathogens.
2019
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Drug-resistant.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Edizione elettronica
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 332.56 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
332.56 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
fauci28jun2019_versione_editoriale_cartaceo.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo principale - Edizione a stampa
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 188.76 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
188.76 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3143493
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact