Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Study of biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance pattern of gram-negative Bacilli among the clinical isolates at BPKIHS, Dharan

BMC Research Notes201912:38

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4084-8

  • Received: 1 November 2018
  • Accepted: 14 January 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Objectives

Gram-negative bacilli are the common causative agents for community-acquired, nosocomial and opportunistic infections. The recent upsurge of biofilm, as well as beta-lactamases producing strains, have synergistically led to the extensive dissemination of multi-drug resistant gram-negative bacilli. This study was carried out with an intention to detect the biofilm formation by gram-negative bacilli and determine their antibiogram along with the detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) and metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) production.

Results

Among 314 isolates, Escherichia coli (38%) were the predominant isolates followed by Acinetobacter spp. (20%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), and Pseudomonas spp. (12%). Overall, 197 (62.73%) of isolates were biofilm positive. 84 (26.75%) and 51 (16.24%) were confirmed as ESBL and MBL producers respectively. The association between MBL production and biofilm formation was statistically significant (χ2 = 10.20, P value= 0.002) whereas it was insignificant between ESBL and biofilm production (χ2 = 0.006, P-value= 0.937). Most of the biofilm and MBL producing strains were multi-drug resistant.

Keywords

  • Gram-negative bacilli
  • Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases
  • Metallo-beta-lactamases
  • Biofilm
  • Multi-drug resistant

Introduction

Gram-negative bacilli, most commonly Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii are responsible for causing various pathological diseases like UTIs, septicemia, pneumonia, nosocomial infections, opportunistic infections etc. [1]. Beta-lactams were wonder drugs until the dissemination of beta-lactamases (ESBL and MBL) producing strains were detected. “extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) may be defined as plasmid-mediated enzymes that hydrolyze oxyimino-cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ceftazidime) and monobactams (aztreonam) but not cephamycins or carbapenems. They are inhibited in vitro by clavulanate” [2]. Metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) are carbapenems hydrolyzing enzymes; inhibited by metal chelating agents like EDTA [3, 4].

Biofilms are the bacterial aggregates firmly lodged in the extracellular matrices of polysaccharides, proteins, enzymes, and nucleic acids; thereby, facilitating anchorage to any surfaces irreversibly [5, 6]. The matrix confers antibiotic resistance through processes such as expression of chromosomally encoded resistant genes, restriction of antibiotics, reduction in growth rate, and even counteracting the host immunity [5, 7, 8].

The biofilm formation and beta-lactamases production synergistically contribute for extensive dissemination of multi-drug resistant strains of gram-negative bacilli. They are responsible for implicating chronicity, persistence, and relapse of infections leading to high morbidity and mortality; thus, posing a serious health crisis [9, 10].

In this regard, the knowledge of biofilm formation and antibiogram of bacterial isolates is of utmost importance for rendering reliable empirical antibiotic therapy to the patients [11]. Irrespective of development of numerous molecular detection techniques, the conventional methods are economical and reliable for the routine screening and diagnosis [8, 12]. Hence, this study was conducted to detect the biofilm formation by gram-negative bacilli and determine their antimicrobial resistance pattern along with the detection of ESBL and MBL production.

Main text

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Microbiology in B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences (March–June, 2018). 314 non-repetitive gram-negative isolates were recovered from the clinical specimens (blood, urine, pus, CSF, endotracheal tube, tracheal aspirate, fluids, lesion swab, genital swab, catheter tips, sputum) submitted to the microbiology lab for routine culture and sensitivity testing. The samples were received from various inpatients wards and outpatient departments of this hospital. All specimens were inoculated on Blood and MacConkey agar except urine specimens which were plated on Cysteine Lactose Deficient Medium (CLED) as per the standard bacteriological procedures. The culture plates were incubated at 35 °C for 24–48 h. The growth isolates were identified on the basis of colony morphology, pigmentation, odor, and their unique biochemical tests [1].

Antibiotic susceptibility test [13]

It was performed on Muller Hinton agar by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method following CLSI guidelines. Ofloxacin (5 µg), levofloxacin (5 µg), ceftazidime (30 µg), cefepime (30 µg), amikacin (30 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), piperacillin (100 µg), piperacillin-tazobactam (100/10 µg), imipenem (10 µg), and colistin (10 µg) were tested as common antibiotics for all strains. Polymyxin B (300 units), tobramycin (10 µg) and carbenicillin (100 µg) were added for Pseudomonas spp.

Phenotypic detection of ESBL and MBL production [13, 14]

The ceftazidime resistant strains were screened for ESBL production by using disc diffusion test. The increase in the zone of the diameter of ≥ 5-mm between ceftazidime (30 μg) and ceftazidime-clavulanate (30/10 μg) was considered ESBL positive [14].

Whereas, imipenem-resistant strains were tested for MBL production by combined disc diffusion assay using two imipenem discs, one with added 10 µl of 0.5 M EDTA. The increased zone of inhibition of > 7 mm around the imipenem-EDTA disc in comparison to zone size of imipenem disc alone was confirmed positive for MBL production [14].

Biofilm detection by tube adherence and Congo red agar methods

Tube adherence method [15]

A growth organism was inoculated into trypticase soy broth and incubated for 24 h at 35 °C. After discarding the supernatant, the tube was washed with phosphate buffer saline. It was treated with 0.1% crystal violet for staining and then washed with water and dried. The appearance of visible biofilm lining the bottom and wall of the tube was considered positive.

Congo red agar method [1618]

The organisms were inoculated on Congo red agar plate and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The formation of black colonies indicated biofilm production.

Results

Out of 2562 samples received during the study period, only 314 were gram-negative bacilli showing the total growth rate of 12.25%. 314 isolates were distributed as Escherichia coli (38%), Acinetobacter spp. (20%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), Pseudomonas spp. (12%), Enterobacter spp. (9%), Citrobacter spp. (2%), Proteus spp. (2%), Providencia stuartii (1%), and Salmonella Typhi (1).

Antimicrobial resistant pattern (Table 1)

Among all the tested antibiotics, most strains were found to be highly resistant to ceftazidime whereas all strains were sensitive to colistin.
Table 1

Showing antibiotic resistance pattern

Antibiotics tested

Escherichia coli (121)

Acinetobacter spp. (63)

Klebsiella spp. (49)

Pseudomonas spp. (38)

Enterobacter spp. (27)

Citrobacter spp. (8)

Proteus spp. (5)

Providencia stuartii (2)

Amikacin

13.22%

44.44%

40.81%

34.21%

33.33%

12.5%

40%

0%

Gentamicin

23.97%

50.79%

46.94%

34.21%

48.14%

25%

60%

50%

Ofloxacin

61.98%

55.56%

57.14%

31.58%

37.03%

12.5%

60%

50%

Levofloxacin

51.24%

52.38%

55.1%

31.58%

29.63%

25%

60%

0%

Ceftazidime

61.98%

73.02%

75.51%

36.84%

51.85%

50%

40%

100%

Cefepime

52.07%

71.43%

59.18%

36.84%

44.44%

50%

40%

50%

Imipenem

21.49%

39.68%

53.01%

31.58%

37.03%

0%

60%

0%

Piperacillin

56.19%

55.56%

63.27%

31.58%

44.44%

62.5%

60%

0%

Piperacillin–Tazobactam

19.0%

46.03%

40.82%

21.01%

33.33%

25%

40%

0%

Colistin

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

N/A

N/A

Polymyxin B

   

10.53%

    

Tobramycin

   

31.58%

    

Carbenicillin

   

39.47%

    

Not applicable (N/A) as they are intrinsically resistant

PolymyxinB, Tobramycin, and Carbenicillin were applied only for Pseudomonas spp.

Biofilm detection

A total of 197 (62.73%) isolates were biofilm positive as detected by either tube adherence or congo red agar method.

Phenotypic detection of ESBL, MBL and biofilm production (Table 2)

Majority of Klebsiella spp. (77.55%) were observed to be biofilm producers followed by Pseudomonas spp. (73.68%).
Table 2

Distribution of biofilm formers and ESBL and MBL producers on the basis of specific organisms

Organisms

Biofilm formers no. (%)

ESBL producers no. (%)

MBL producers no. (%)

Both ESBL and MBL producers no. (%)

ESBL, MBL and biofilm producers no. (%)

Escherichia coli (121)

73 (60.33%)

46 (38.01%)

11 (9.09%)

3 (2.48%)

3 (2.48%)

Acinetobacter spp. (63)

34 (53.97%)

10 (15.87%)

13 (20.63%)

1 (1.59%)

1 (1.59%)

Klebsiella spp. (49)

38 (77.55%)

15 (30.61%)

13 (26.53%)

3 (6.12%)

3 (6.12%)

Pseudomonas spp. (38)

28 (73.68%)

6 (15.79%)

10 (26.31%)

2 (5.26%)

2 (5.26%)

Enterobacter spp. (27)

16 (59.26%)

2 (7.41%)

3 (11.11%)

1 (3.70%)

0

Citrobacter spp. (8)

5 (62.50%)

2 (25%)

0

0

0

Proteus spp. (5)

2 (40%)

1 (20%)

1 (20%)

0

0

Providencia stuartii (2)

1 (50%)

2 (100%)

0

0

0

Total (314)

197 (62.73%)

84 (26.75%)

51 (16.24%)

10 (3.18%)

9 (2.87%)

Among the suspected cases of ESBL and MBL producers, 84 (26.75%) and 51 (16.24%) were confirmed as ESBL and MBL producers respectively. 38.01% of E. coli were detected as ESBL producers showing comparatively higher incidence. Klebsiella spp. were found to be the highest MBL producers i.e., 26.53% closely followed by Pseudomonas spp. (26.31%).

Association of ESBL and MBL production with biofilm formation

Although maximum ESBL producers were biofilm positive, no statistical significance was observed. (χ2 = 0.006, P-value= 0.937).

The association between MBL production and biofilm formation was found to be statistically significant. (χ2 = 10.20, P-value= 0.002).

Association of ESBL, MBL and Biofilm production with antibiotic resistance (Table 3)

There was a significant association of ESBL production and biofilm formation to antibiotic resistance. For all antibiotics except polymyxin B, the association between MBL production and antibiotic resistance was noted to be statistically significant (P-value = 0.001).
Table 3

Showing association between antibiotics resistance, ESBL production, MBL production, and biofilm production

Antibiotics

ESBL

MBL

Biofilm

Resistance (%)

P-value

Resistance (%)

P-value

Resistance (%)

P-value

Producers (%)

Non-producers (%)

Producers (%)

Non-producers (%)

Formers (%)

Non-formers (%)

Amikacin

22.61

30.43

0.174

84.31

17.49

0.001

34.52

17.95

0.002

Gentamicin

41.67

35.21

0.295

82.35

28.13

0.001

42.64

27.35

0.007

Ofloxacin

69.04

46.52

0.001

96.08

44.11

0.001

57.87

43.59

0.01

Levofloxacin

58.33

42.6

0.013

94.12

37.64

0.001

54.31

34.19

0.001

Cefepime

84.52

43.48

0.001

94.12

46.77

0.001

59.39

46.15

0.023

Ceftazidime

100

47.82

0.001

96.08

55.13

0.001

66.5

53.85

0.026

Imipenem

26.19

35.22

0.132

100

19.77

0.001

39.09

22.22

0.002

Piperacillin

72.62

45.65

0.001

90.19

45.62

0.001

57.87

44.44

0.021

Piperacillin-Tazobactum

35.71

27.39

0.153

66.67

22.43

0.001

32.49

24.79

0.148

Colistin

0

0

*

0

0

*

0

0

*

Polymyxin B

16.67

9.38

0.241

20

7.14

0.079

10.71

10

0.33

Tobramycin

66.67

25

0.067

80

14.28

0.001

35.71

20

0.233

Carbenicillin

66.67

34.38

0.126

80

25

0.001

42.86

30

0.267

PolymyxinB, Tobramycin, and Carbenicillin were applied only for Pseudomonas spp.

* No resistance was observed, P-value could not be calculated

Discussion

In this study, 314 g-negative strains were obtained. E. coli was the most prevalent pathogen with the occurrence of 38%; identical to the results recorded by Fatima et al. (38%) [19]. Several studies reported E. coli to be the most isolated GNB causing septicemia, UTIs and other infections [1922]. The incidences of Acinetobacter spp. (20%) and Pseudomonas spp. (12%) in our study coincide with the findings of Sundaram et al. (21%) and Mshana et al. (12.2%) respectively [21, 23].

On account of antibiotic resistance pattern, almost all organisms were highly resistant to ceftazidime. This is probably due to the widespread use of third-generation cephalosporins without knowing the severity of infections [23]. In contrast, no strains were resistant to colistin.

Overall, 62.73% of isolates were detected as biofilm formers in our study. This is in agreement with the study led by Allam et al. (64.28%) [24]. A similar study conducted in our center, BPKIHS, by Shrestha et al. recorded 71.8% isolates as biofilm producers [8]. The prevalence of biofilm producing Klebsiella spp. (77.55%), Pseudomonas spp. (73.68%), E. coli (60.33%) and Acinetobacter spp. (53.97%) in our study are in accordance with the studies of Allam et al. (72.72%), Pittaya et al. (79.4%), Allam et al. (55.77%) and Gurung et al. (50%) respectively [2426]. The majority of biofilm producers were extracted from tissues, sputum, devices, and exudate samples supporting the fact that biofilm formation is facilitated by tissue lesions, implanted medical devices, chronic respiratory diseases, surgical wounds etc. [6, 9].

26.75% strains were accounted as ESBL producers coinciding with Mshana et al. (29.8%) [23]. The proportion of ESBL production in Nepal ranges from 18 to 62.7% [27]. Among the maximum isolated strains, the occurrence was higher for E. coli (38.01%) comparable to the result of Sundaram et al. (35.3%) [21]. The incidence of ESBL production by Klebsiella spp. in Nepal has been reported ranging from 4.1 to 90.9% supporting our finding [27, 28]. Laudy et al. had the result of 15% ESBL producing P. aeruginosa equals to our finding [29]. Moreover, 16.24% were MBL positive, concomitant with Kamalraj et al. (18%) [30]. Our study reported Klebsiella spp. (26.53%), Pseudomonas spp. (26.31%) and Acinetobacter spp. (20.63%) as the major MBL producers which are in conformity with the data of Kaur et al. (34.8%), Anuradha et al. (28.57%) and Baniya et al. (22%) for the respective organisms [18, 20, 31]. The coexistence of biofilm along with both beta-lactamases producing strains was found to be 2.87%. The biofilm matrix has been reported to enhance the expression of resistant genes like beta-lactamases [5, 7].

Despite the maximum ESBL producers being biofilm positive, no significant association was found between them, similar to the finding of Emami et al. but in contrast with other studies [17, 32, 33]. Conversely, the association between MBL production and biofilm formation was observed to be statistically significant. Although most of the antibiotics were resistant towards ESBL producers, the association was statistically insignificant. Amikacin followed by imipenem were found to be effective against ESBL producers. Except for polymyxin B, statistically significant association was established between MBL production and antibiotic resistance. Ceftazidime was 100% resistant to MBL positive strains, compatible with the study of Lyra et al. [34]. Besides, various studies have demonstrated MBL producers as pan drug-resistant strains signifying an alarming threat [3537].

The association between biofilm and antibiotic resistance was noted to be statistically significant for aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, imipenem, and piperacillin. A higher proportion of antibiotic resistance in biofilm producers in comparison to non-producers has been documented in many studies [35, 3842]. No resistance was observed against colistin. It’s the last viable option for multi-drug resistant strains either being non-producers or producers of ESBL, MBL and biofilm [20, 43].

Conclusion

The notable prevalence of biofilm-forming and multidrug-resistant organisms in our institution provides a glimpse of upcoming threat in our part of the world. The routine monitoring of biofilm and beta-lactamases production; therefore, can be recommended in clinical laboratories along with the strict implementation of infection control and prevention activities.

Limitations

The lack of confirmation of biofilm, ESBL, and MBL production by using molecular technologies are the drawbacks of this study.

Abbreviations

GNB: 

gram-negative bacilli

ESBL: 

extended-spectrum beta-lactamase

MBL: 

metallo-beta-lactamase

MDR: 

multidrug-resistant

UTI: 

urinary tract infection

CLSI: 

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

EDTA: 

ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization: RD, RB, LBS. Investigation: RD. Methodology: RD, RB, LBS. Resources: RD, RB, LBS. Supervision: RB, LBS. Writing original draft: RD. Writing- review, and editing: RB, LBS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

All members of Department of Microbiology of BPKIHS, Dharan.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

It was obtained from the Departmental Research Unit (DRU), an authorized wing of Institutional Review Committee (IRC), B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences (BPKIHS), Reference No. 964/Micro/075.

Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from the participant.

Funding

None.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, B.P Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, 56700, Nepal

References

  1. Washington CW Jr, Stephen DA, William MJ, Elmer WK, Gray WP, Paul CSGL. Koneman’s colour atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Thenmozhi S, Moorthy K, Sureshkumar BT, Suresh M. Antibiotic resistance mechanism of esbl producing enterobacteriaceae in clinical field: a review. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2014;2(3):207–26.Google Scholar
  3. Nepal K, Pant ND, Neupane B, Belbase A, Baidhya R, Shrestha RK, et al. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase and metallo beta-lactamase production among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from different clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2017;16:62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Saffari M, Firoozeh F, Pourbabaee M, Zibaei M. Evaluation of metallo-β-lactamase-production and carriage of bla-VIM Ges in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn wound infections in Isfahan. Arch Trauma Res. 2016;5:4. https://doi.org/10.5812/atr.34343.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Macià MD, Rojo-Molinero E, Oliver A. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing in biofilm-growing bacteria. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(10):981–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Basak S, Rajurkar MN, Attal RO. Biofilms : a challenge to medical fraternity in infection control. Infect Control. 2013. https://doi.org/10.5772/55649.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Donlan RM. Biofilm formation: a clinically relevant microbiological process. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1387–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Shrestha LB, Bhattarai NR, Khanal B. Comparative evaluation of methods for the detection of biofilm formation in coagulase-negative staphylococci and correlation with antibiogram. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:607–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284(5418):1318–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Jr CJS, Mende K, Beckius ML, Akers KS, Romano DR, Wenke JC, et al. Biofilm formation by clinical isolates and the implications in chronic infections. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-13-47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Tanwar J, Das S, Fatima Z, Hameed S. Multidrug resistance: an emerging crisis. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2014;2014:541340 [PMID: 25140175].View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Mohamed A, Rajaa AM, Khalid Z, Fouad M, Naima R. Comparison of three methods for the detection of biofilm formation by clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus isolated in Casablanca. Int J Sci Res. 2016;5(10):1156–9. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20162319.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. CLSI. Clinical and laboratory standards institute. Document No M100. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: 27th edition. Wayne, USA: CLSI; 2017.Google Scholar
  14. Yong D, Lee K, Yum JH, Shin HB, Rossolini GM, Chong Y. Imipenem-EDTA disk method for differentiation of metallo-β-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(10):3798–801. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.10.3798 [PMID: 12354884].View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen G, Simpson WA, Younger JJ, Larry M, Barrett FF, Melton DM, et al. Adherence of coagulase-negative Staphylococci to plastic tissue culture plates: a quantitative model for the adherence of Staphylococci to medical devices. J Clin Microbiol. 1985;22(6):996–1006.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman DJ, Falkiner FR, Patrick S. New method for detecting slime production by coagulase negative staphylococci. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42:872–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Neupane S, Pant ND, Khatiwada S, Chaudhary R, Banjara MR. Correlation between biofilm formation and resistance toward different commonly used antibiotics along with extended spectrum beta lactamase production in uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from the patients suspected of urinary tract infections visiting Shree Birendra Hospital, Chhauni, Kathmandu, Nepal. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016;5:5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Baniya B, Pant ND, Neupane S, Khatiwada S, Yadav UN. Biofilm and metallo beta-lactamase production among the strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kathmandu. Nepal. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2017;16:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-017-0245-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fatima S, Prasanthi K, Nagamani K. Comparative evaluation of biofilm production in Multidrug resistant and sensitive Gram negative clinical isolates. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2015;4(6):918–26.Google Scholar
  20. Kaur N, Kaur A, Singh S. Prevalence of ESBL and MBL producing gram negative isolates from various clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(4):1423–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Sundaram M, Babu D, Dhandapani K. A Study on correlation between the drug resistance and biofilm production among the GNB isolated from blood. Indian J Microbiol Res. 2016;3(2):197–202. https://doi.org/10.5958/2394-5478.2016.00045.5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussain JH, Sharma A, Jaggi T, Mishra B, Thakur A, Dogra V, et al. Epidemiology of biofilm formation by Gram-negative bacilli in patients with urinary tract infection in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Heal Allied Sci. 2017;6:15–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-344X.200206.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Mshana SE, Kamugisha E, Mirambo M, Chakraborty T, Lyamuya EF. Prevalence of multiresistant gram-negative organisms in a tertiary hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania. BioMed Cent. 2009;2:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-2-49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Allam NG. Correlation between biofilm production and bacterial urinary tract infections: new therapeutic approach. Egypt J Microbiol. 2017;52:39–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Maita P, Boonbumrung K. Association between biofilm formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates versus antibiotic resistance and genes involved with biofilm. J Chem Pharm Res. 2014;6(5):1022–8.Google Scholar
  26. Khyriem A, Lyngdoh W, Banik A, Choudhury B, Bhattacharyya P, Gurung J. Association of biofilm production with multidrug resistance among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from intensive care unit. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2013;17(4):214.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Pathak J, Pokharel N. Multidrug resistant and extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) isolates from different clinical specimens. Int J Sci and Res Pub. 2015;5:1–5.Google Scholar
  28. Raut S, Gokhale S, Adhikari B. Prevalence of extended spectrum beta-lactamases among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara. Nepal. J Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;5(2):69–75. https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs.02.2015.02.0179.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Laudy AE, Rog P, Słoczy A, Patzer J, Dzier D, Wolinowska R, et al. Prevalence of ESBL-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Warsaw, Poland, detected by various phenotypic and genotypic methods. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180121.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kamalraj M, Kaviarasan K, Padmapriya G. Phenotypic detection of ESBL and MBL in clinical isolates of nonfermenters. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res. 2015;4(4):470–5.Google Scholar
  31. De Anuradha S, Kumar S, Baveja SM. Prevalence of metallobetalactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter Species in intensive care unit in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2010;14(4):217–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-5229.76089.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Emami S, Eftekhar F. The correlation between biofilm formation and drug resistance in nosocomial isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Avicenna J Clin Microb Infec. 2015;2:2. https://doi.org/10.17795/ajcmi-23954.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Shanmugam K, Thyagarajan R, Katragadda R, Vajravelu L, Lakshmy A. Biofilm formation and extended spectrum beta lactamases (esbl) producers among the gram negative bacteria causing urinary tract infections. Int J Med Microbiol Trop Dis. 2017;3(3):86–90. https://doi.org/10.18231/2455-6807.2017.0021.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Lyra PR, Cugati S, Anuradha K, Venkatesha D. Metallo beta lactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2016;5(11):269–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Punia P, Goel N, Asati S, Phogat R, Chaudhary U. Biofilm detection amongst extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) and metallo beta lactamase (MBL) producing clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Int J Enchanced Res Med Dent Care. 2016;3:10.Google Scholar
  36. Rao S, Karthika R, Singh S, Shashikala P, Kanungo R, Jayachandran S, et al. Correlation between biofilm production and multiple drug resistance in imipenem resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter Baumannii. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2008;26(4):333–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Mishra SK, Acharya J, Kattel HP, Koirala J, Rijal BP, Pokhrel BM. Metallo-beta-lactamase producing gram-negative bacterial isolates. J Nepal Heal Res Counc. 2012;10(22):208–13.Google Scholar
  38. Ghadiri H, Vaez H, Azarkhiavi KR, Rezaee R, Noormohammadi MH, Rahimi AA, Vaez V, Kalantar E. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility patterns of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase and metallo-ß-lactamase-producing uropathogenic. Lab Med. 2014;45(4):291–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Heydari S, Eftekhar F. Biofilm formation and β-lactamase production in burn isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2015;8:3. https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm.15514.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Pramodhini S, Niveditha S, Umadevi S, Kumar S, Stephen S. Antiobiotic resistance pattern of biofilm-forming uropathogens isolated from catheterised patients in Pondicherry, India. Australas Med J. 2012;5(7):344–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Shahidul KM, Farahnaaz F, Sunjukta A. Determination of Antibiotic resistance pattern of Biofilm producing Pathogenic Bacteria associated with UTI. Int J Drug Dev Res. 2013;5(4):312–9.Google Scholar
  42. Shrestha LB, Bhattarai NR, Khanal B. Antibiotic resistance and biofilm formation among coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from clinical samples at a tertiary care hospital of eastern Nepal. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017;6:89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Vuotto C, Longo F, Balice M, Donelli G, Varaldo P. Antibiotic Resistance Related to Biofilm Formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Pathogens. 2014;3:743–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2019

Advertisement