2009•Shiyong yaowu yu linchuangRequires access

Changes of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii from 2000 to 2006.

Wang Shuang, Li Dong, Chu Yunzhuo

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To analyse the changes of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii,and provide useful help to the treatment of acinetobacter baumannii infection.MethodsThe strains isolated from our hospital were collected from 2000 to 2006,and drug sensitive test were carried by Kirby-Bauer agar diffusion method.ResultsThe strains of acinetobacter baumannii isolated from 2000 to 2005 were arranged from 61 to 104 and ranked from 7 to 10.247 strains were isolated and ranked 5 in 2006.The rates of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii to amikacin,cefoperazone sulbactam and imipenam were low from 2000 to 2002.But the resistant rates were not lower than 20% except for imipenam in 2003.The resistant rate of acinetobacter baumannii to imipenam was over than 40% during 2005 and 2006.ConclusionThe infections caused by acinetobacter baumannii showed a remarkable uptrend.It should be paid more attentions to the problems of multi-drug resistant and pan-resistant acinetobacter baumannii.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To analyse the changes of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii,and provide useful help to the treatment of acinetobacter baumannii infection.MethodsThe strains isolated from our hospital were collected from 2000 to 2006,and drug sensitive test were carried by Kirby-Bauer agar diffusion method.ResultsThe strains of acinetobacter baumannii isolated from 2000 to 2005 were arranged from 61 to 104 and ranked from 7 to 10.247 strains were isolated and ranked 5 in 2006.The rates of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii to amikacin,cefoperazone sulbactam and imipenam were low from 2000 to 2002.But the resistant rates were not lower than 20% except for imipenam in 2003.The resistant rate of acinetobacter baumannii to imipenam was over than 40% during 2005 and 2006.ConclusionThe infections caused by acinetobacter baumannii showed a remarkable uptrend.It should be paid more attentions to the problems of multi-drug resistant and pan-resistant acinetobacter baumannii.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To analyse the changes of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii,and provide useful help to the treatment of acinetobacter baumannii infection.MethodsThe strains isolated from our hospital were collected from 2000 to 2006,and drug sensitive test were carried by Kirby-Bauer agar diffusion method.ResultsThe strains of acinetobacter baumannii isolated from 2000 to 2005 were arranged from 61 to 104 and ranked from 7 to 10.247 strains were isolated and ranked 5 in 2006.The rates of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii to amikacin,cefoperazone sulbactam and imipenam were low from 2000 to 2002.But the resistant rates were not lower than 20% except for imipenam in 2003.The resistant rate of acinetobacter baumannii to imipenam was over than 40% during 2005 and 2006.ConclusionThe infections caused by acinetobacter baumannii showed a remarkable uptrend.It should be paid more attentions to the problems of multi-drug resistant and pan-resistant acinetobacter baumannii.

Key concepts: Acinetobacter baumannii, Cefoperazone, Sulbactam, Acinetobacter, Amikacin, Microbiology, Antimicrobial, Antibiotic resistance

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Changes of antimicrobial resistance of acinetobacter baumannii from 2000 to 2006. — Research Paper | ScholarLens