Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Original Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Original Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
14 (
2
); 59-65

Comparative Evaluation of Biofilm Detection Methods among Uropathogenic Gram-Positive and Gram Negative Bacteria Isolated from Catheterized Urine Sample and its antibiogram

Assistant professor, Department of Microbiology, SreeGokulam Medical College and Research foundation, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
Professor and Head of Department, Department of Microbiology, SreeGokulam Medical College and Research foundation, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
Professor, Department of Microbiology, SreeGokulam Medical College and Research foundation, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

*Corresponding Author: Dr. Deepthi T Email: deepthithankappan@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Abstract

Background:

Biofilm formation is apotential virulence characteristic exhibitedby bacteria resulting in theseverity of many infections. It will give rise to multidrug resistant strains disturbing the effective management of many chronic infections.

Objectives:

The present study aims to focus on the biofilm detection of uropathogenic bacteria by three distinct techniques. The sensitivity and specificity for all the three methods is evaluated. Thepresent study also demonstrates the antibiogram of biofilm producing bacteria.

Materials and Method:

The study includes 89bacterial isolates from catheterized patients with urinary tract infections admitted in ICUs, dialysis units and various wards. Formation of biofilm was detected by: tube method (TM), the tissue culture plate (TCP) method and Congo Red Agar (CRA) method. According to CLSI guidelines the antimicrobial susceptibility test was performed among the biofilm forming bacteria.

Results:

Out of 89 bacterial isolates, 33 were gram positive cocci and 56 were gram negative bacilli. Among the gram positive cocci, 28 (84.8%) andgram negative bacilli, 50(89.2%) formed biofilm. Sensitivity of TCM, TM, and CRM methods were 98.3%, 71.4% and 18.6% respectively. For biofilm forming gram positive bacteria, the maximum antibiotic resistance was achieved towards Penicillin (89%) followed by Amoxyclav (78%). In the case of gram negative bacteria gentamicin showed maximum resistance in 88% followed by Ciprofloxacin in 80% of the isolates.

Conclusion:

Biofilm and multi-drug resistance plays a vital role in thepathogenesis ofcatheterized urinary tract infection (CAUTI). Evaluation of Biofilm among uropathogenic bacteria helps to manage clinically resulting in better prognosis. Tissue culture plate techniqueisvery effectivein detecting biofilm that can be suggested in diagnostic laboratories.

Keywords

Biofilm
virulence factor
multidrug resistance
CAUTI

Fulltext Views
5

PDF downloads
3
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections