Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Aerobic Organisms in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Hamadan, Iran

Farhad Farahani; Rasoul Yousefi Mashouf; Farnaz Hashemian; Rasoul Esmaeili

doi:10.17795/ajcmi-18961

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Aerobic Organisms in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Hamadan, Iran

Farhad Farahani ^{1 , *} , Rasoul Yousefi Mashouf ² , Farnaz Hashemian ¹ and Rasoul Esmaeili ³

Authors Information

¹ Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, IR Iran

² Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, IR Iran

³ Student's Research Committee, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, IR Iran

Article Notes and Dates

Avicenna Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infection: August 2014, 1 (2); e18961.Published Online: August 1, 2014

Article Type: Research Article; Received : March 15, 2014; Revised : June 26, 2014; Accepted : June 29, 2014
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17795/ajcmi-18961

To Cite : Farahani F, Yousefi Mashouf R, Hashemian F, Esmaeili R. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Aerobic Organisms in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Hamadan, Iran, Avicenna J Clin Microb Infec. 2014 ;1(2):e18961. doi: 10.17795/ajcmi-18961.

Abstract

Results: Among the aerobic organism from meatus and oropharynx, the most frequent isolated strains were alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus (15.4%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (14.6%), and Branhamella catarrhalis (13.2%), and the most prevalent isolated strains from sinus were S. aureus (19.1%), Klebsiella pneumonia (16.4%), and B. catarrhalis (15.6%), respectively. The highest antibiotic susceptibility was detected to ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone in most of the strains; susceptibility to ciprofloxacin ranged from 76.7% (for Pseudomonas aeruginosa) to 100% (for Escherichia coli and Haemophilus influenza); susceptibility to ceftriaxone ranged from 71.4% (for Acinetobacter baumannii) to 100% (for S. pneumonia, Corynebacterium diphtheria, and H. influenza). Besides, regardless of strain, the highest resistance was mostly detected to penicillin (ranging from 33.3% to 91.7%), and to ampicillin (ranging from 38.4% to 83.7%).

Copyright: Copyright © 0, Avicenna Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infection. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Background

Increase of resistance to antimicrobial agents is now an important problem in our community and has been identified as a serious and critical issue for public health (1-3). Although effective strategies have been proposed to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance in Iran including education of physicians and patients to use antimicrobial agents appropriately, published reports from medical centers reveal the increasing trend of antibiotic resistance in both adults and children (4-7). Irrational use of antibiotics develops resistant bacterial strains (8). Overusing antibiotics in different medical fields has resulted in increasing rates of community-acquired infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (9). In addition, most antibiotics are rather inexpensive in most developing countries in addition to being available without prescription (10). These and many other reasons can result in higher spread of antimicrobial resistant strains in the community.

Antibiotics constitute the main medical treatments for different infectious diseases such as bacterial sinusitis (11). Due to some difficulties for obtaining sinus culture as well as differentiating bacterial sinusitis from other nonbacterial types of sinus involvements, a large spectrum of antibiotics may be empirically used (12-14). Therefore, inappropriate usage of large-spectrum antibiotics may lead to increased bacterial resistance and virulence. Meanwhile, not only there are limited reliable data on common pathogens associated with sinusitis in Iranian patients, but also no comprehensive information is available on bacterial resistance to common antibiotics used for treating sinusitis.

3. Patients and Methods

This cross-sectional study was performed in 2012 on 216 consecutive patients with chronic rhinosinusitis according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology criteria. In this study, we enrolled patients with chronic rhinosinusitis who had the disease symptoms for more than 12 weeks according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology criteria for rhinosinusitis. These criteria are for acute rhinosinusitis. Therefore, we diagnosed the patients who had the criteria, but only enrolled the ones who had the symptoms for more than 12 weeks. These criteria include: up to four weeks of purulent nasal drainage accompanied by nasal obstruction, facial pain/pressure/fullness, or both. The patients referred to the otolaryngology clinic of Imam Khomeini and Besat university hospitals in Hamadan, Iran and were candidate for endoscopic sinus surgery. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences and informed consents were obtained from the all the patients. Two specimens were taken from each patient; one from the affected maxillary sinus by aspiration in the operating room and another from the middle meatus and nasopharynx (associated with nasal or pharyngeal bacterial flora) by swabbing. The specimens swabbed from meatus and nasopharynx as well as the specimens from sinus secretion were inoculated into thioglycollate liquid medium with agar and sent to the microbiology laboratory of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. Simultaneously, the patients’ demographic characteristics including gender, age, residence and admission date were recorded on the study self-administered questionnaires. Preliminary diagnostic tests were performed and the specimens were cultured on eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar, blood agar, and chocolate agar. Next, specific differential biochemical tests including catalase, oxidase, mannitol, coagulase, urease, nitrate, H₂S production, indole, triple sugar iron (TSI), phenylalanine, pigment, methyl red, and Voges-Proskauer were performed to characterize different species of bacteria, using different enzymes. Each colony was considered as representative of a microorganism.

Antibiotic susceptibility of the isolates was tested by Kirby Bauer’s method (15), using antibiotic disks; the isolates were screened using ampicillin (20 µg), tetracycline (10 µg), chloramphenicol (30 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), kanamycin (10 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), penicillin (20 µg), and ceftriaxone (30 µg). These antibiotic disks were purchased from Padtan Teb Co. (Tehran, Iran). At first, four to five pieces of separate colonies were cultured in 4-5 mL of tryptic soy broth (TSB) medium. The surfaces of five-millimeter-thick Mueller-Hinton agar plates were inoculated with a bacterial suspension, visually adjusted to 0.5 McFarland (108 CFU/mL) and diluted 100 folds. Then, eight-millimeter holes were made in agar plates with sterile die cutter and the wells were loaded with topical agents. The inhibition diameters were measured after six to eight hours of incubation at 35°C. Distribution of the isolates obtained from meatus, nasopharynx and sinus samples were determined and results of the susceptibility test were analyzed.

4. Results

Among 216 patients enrolled in the study, 134 (62.1%) were male and others were female. In our study, 122 (56.4%) subjects lived in urban and 94 (43.6%) in rural areas. More than half of the participants aged 30-49 years old (Figure 1). Among all the strains obtained from meatus and nasopharynx, the most frequent isolated strain was alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus (15.4%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (14.6%), and Branhamella catarrhalis (13.8%). In addition, the most prevalent isolated strains from sinus in those with sinusitis were S. aureus (19.1%), Klebsiella pneumonia (16.4%), and B. catarrhalis (15.6%), respectively (Table 1). Assessment of antibiotic resistance and susceptibly patterns of 384 isolates showed that the highest antibiotic susceptibility was detected to ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone in most of the strains that susceptibility to ciprofloxacin ranged from 76.7% (for Pseudomonas aeruginosa) to 100% (for Escherichia coli and Haemophilus influenzae); susceptibility to ceftriaxone ranged from 71.4% (for Acinetobacter baumannii) to 100% (for Streptococcus pneumonia, Corynebacterium diphtheriae and H. influenzae) (Table 2). Besides, regardless of strain, the highest resistance was mostly detected to penicillin (ranging from 33.3% to 91.7%), ampicillin (ranging from 38.4% to 83.7%), tetracycline (ranging from 50.0% to 57.6%), and chloramphenicol (ranging from 33.3% to 62.3%).

Figure 1. Age Distribution in Patients With Sinusitis

Table 1. Frequency of Isolates from Meatus, Pharynx and Sinus ^a

Organism Type	Total, No. (%)	Meatus and Pharynx, No. (%)	Sinus, No. (%)
Alpha-hemolytic streptococcus	59 (15.4)	48 (17.5)	11 (10.0)
Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus	56 (14.6)	42 (15.3)	14 (12.6)
Branhamellacatarrhalis	53 (13.8)	36 (13.2)	17 (15.6)
S.aureus	49 (12.8)	28 (10.2)	21 (19.1)
Klebsiella pneumonia	43 (11.2)	25 (9.1)	18 (16.4)
S. pneumonia	29 (7.5)	23 (8.4)	6 (5.6)
Acinetobacter baumannii	28 (7.3)	18 (6.6)	10 (9.1)
Escherichia coli	24 (6.2)	19 (6.9)	5 (4.5)
Proteus mirabilis	13 (3.4)	13 (4.7)	0 (0.0)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa	12 (3.1)	7 (2.6)	5 (4.5)
Corynebactriumdiphtheriae	12 (3.1)	12 (4.4)	0 (0.0)
Haemophilusinfluenzae	6 (1.6)	3 (1.1)	3 (2.6)

^a Data are presented as No.(%).

Table 2. Maximum Antibiotic Sensitivity and Resistance Patterns of Isolates ^a

Organism Type	Maximum Sensitivity, No. (%)	Maximum Resistance, No. (%)
Alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus (n = 59)	Ceftriaxone, 55 (93.2)	Tetracycline, 34 (57.6)
Alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus (n = 59)	Ciprofloxacin, 51 (86.4)	Chloramphenicol, 30 (50.9)
Coagulase-negative staphylococcus (n = 56)	Ceftriaxone, 46 (82.2)	Penicillin, 49 (87.5)
Coagulase-negative staphylococcus (n = 56)	Ciprofloxacin, 45 (80.4)	Ampicillin, 43 (76.8)
Branhamella catarrhalis (n = 53)	Ceftriaxone, 49 (92.4)	Chloramphenicol, 33 (62.3)
Branhamella catarrhalis (n = 53)	Ciprofloxacin, 48 (90.6)	Ampicillin, 27 (60.0)
S.aureus (n = 49)	Ceftriaxone, 45 (91.8)	Ampicillin, 41 (83.7)
S.aureus (n = 49)	Ciprofloxacin, 41 (83.7)	Cephalexin, 42 (81.7)
Klebsiella pneumonia (n = 43)	Ceftriaxone, 36 (83.7)	Ampicillin, 31 (72.1)
Klebsiella pneumonia (n = 43)	Gentamicin, 35 (81.4)	Penicillin, 29 (67.4)
S. pneumonia (n = 29)	Ceftriaxone, 29 (100)	Chloramphenicol, 12 (41.4)
S. pneumonia (n = 29)	Cephalexin, 26 (89.6)	Kanamycin, 10 (34.5)
Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 28)	Ciprofloxacin, 24 (85.7)	Penicillin, 24 (85.7)
Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 28)	Ceftriaxone, 20 (71.4)	Ampicillin, 22 (78.6)
Escherichia coli (n = 24)	Ciprofloxacin, 24 (100)	Penicillin, 22 (91.6)
Escherichia coli (n = 24)	Gentamicin, 21 (87.5)	Ampicillin, 12 (50.0)
Proteus mirabilis (n = 13)	Ceftriaxone, 12 (92.3)	Penicillin, 6 (46.2)
Proteus mirabilis (n = 13)	Ciprofloxacin, 12 (92.3)	Ampicillin, 5 (38.4)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 12)	Ciprofloxacin, 8 (76.7)	Penicillin, 11 (91.7)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 12)	Chloramphenicol, 5 (41.7)	Ampicillin, 10 (83.4)
Corynebacterium diphtheriae(n = 12)	Ceftriaxone, 12 (100)	Tetracycline, 6 (50.0)
Corynebacterium diphtheriae(n = 12)	Kanamycin, 11 (91.7)	Penicillin, 4 (33.3)
Haemophilus influenzae (n = 6)	Ciprofloxacin, 6 (100)	Tetracycline, 3 (50.0)
Haemophilus influenzae (n = 6)	Ceftriaxone, 6 (100)	Chloramphenicol, 2 (33.3)

^a Data are presented as No.(%).

5. Discussion

Broad-spectrum empirical antibiotics are commonly used in clinical settings; however, the use of these antibiotics, especially regardless of the type of specific pathogenic agents, can lead to increased bacterial resistance and virulence. In many geographic areas, penicillin group is a reasonable first-line antibiotic for treatment of sinusitis (16). When first-line agents fail or there is a high prevalence of β–lactamase resistance, second or third-generation cephalosporins as well as quinolones provide broader coverages (16). Nevertheless, due to the wide distribution of bacterial resistance to these agents, restriction of inappropriate use of these antibiotics has been considered strongly. In our community, some subtypes of antibiotics including penicillin subgroups have been extensively prescribed, leading to considerable resistance to this antibiotic in different ages (17, 18). These observations have been confirmed by our findings in the current study among patients with sinusitis. Meanwhile, surveillance studies have indicated a significant resistance development due to alteration of penicillin binding proteins (19, 20).

In our study, the commonest aerobic pathogens found in middle meatus were alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus, followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Similar observations were reported by Klossek (21) and Gordts (22), stating that coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most common bacterial isolate in both studies. Despite similarity in types of common isolates, frequency of these pathogens in chronic sinusitis was widely different; so that the prevalence rate of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus among our population was 14.6%, while it was reported 50% by Klossek et al. (21) and 35% by Gordts et al. (22). This discrepancy can be related to patients’ age, disease duration, differences in the sampling techniques, site of specimen collection, specimen transportation method, inoculation media, and previous antibiotic therapies (23).

Although aerobic pathogens accounted for most common isolated specimens in our study, previous studies that evaluated the sinus aspirates obtained from patients with chronic sinusitis yielded complex findings, varying from absence of anaerobes to anaerobes constituting 56% of all isolated pathogens (24-29). In a study by Finegold et al. (30), Streptococcus species (21.4%), H. influenzae (15.7%) and M. catarrhalis (10.0%) were among the most frequently isolated aerobic and/or facultative pathogens, which were partially consistent with our findings.

Antibiotic resistance is a global health problem. In spite of therapeutic technological advances, development of new antimicrobial agents is now in a slow trend. Almost all the developing countries are adopting a policy to limit and prevent antibiotic resistance by a multi-faceted approach to improve the public health. Since the most important cause of bacterial resistance is misuse of these agents, the strategy should address the rational prescription of antibiotics; thus, scheduling nationwide antibiotic restriction programs can effectively reduce the antibiotic-resistance rate.

Acknowledgements

Footnote

References

1. Khalili H, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Karimzadeh I, Jafari S, Abdollahi A, Shahidi MR, et al. Changes in 4-year antimicrobial resistance pattern of gram-positive bacteria at the main referral teaching hospital, Tehran, Iran. Acta Med Iran. 2012; 50(7): 493-504[PubMed]
2. Ranjbar M, Mohammad Alizadeh AH, Pazhooh HK, Kashani KM, Golmohammadi M, Nojomi M. Nosocomial infections and antimicrobial resistance pattern in a tertiary referral hospital in Hamedan, Iran. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2012; 2(1): 46-7[DOI][PubMed]
3. Khalili H, Soltani R, Safhami S, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Alijani B. Antimicrobial resistance pattern of gram-negative bacteria of nosocomial origin at a teaching hospital in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2012; 18(2): 172-7[PubMed]
4. Mardani M. Trends in antimicrobial resistance. Arc Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 1(3)
5. McNulty CA, Cookson BD, Lewis MA. Education of healthcare professionals and the public. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012; 67 Suppl 1-8[DOI][PubMed]
6. Jarousse LA. Antimicrobial stewardship: it's time to step it up. Hosp Health Netw. 2012; 86(5): 41-8[PubMed]
7. Hannigan NS, Tolman DR, Larson EL. Resisting resistance: practical decision tools for choosing antimicrobials safely. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2012; 24(5): 324-30[DOI][PubMed]
8. Pechere JC. Patients' interviews and misuse of antibiotics. Clin Infect Dis. 2001; 33 Suppl 3-3[DOI][PubMed]
9. McNulty CA, Boyle P, Nichols T, Clappison P, Davey P. The public's attitudes to and compliance with antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007; 60 Suppl 1-8[DOI][PubMed]
10. Vila J, Pal T. Update on antibacterial resistance in low-income countries: factors favoring the emergence of resistance. Open Infect Dis J. 2010; 4(1): 38-54
11. Smith SR, Montgomery LG, Williams JW, Jr. Treatment of mild to moderate sinusitis. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(6): 510-3[DOI][PubMed]
12. Xiao L, Zheng J, Yang L, Chen J, Lu Y, Lu S, et al. [Microbial profile and antibiotic susceptibility of chronic rhinosinusitis]. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2011; 25(15): 692-4[PubMed]
13. DeAlleaume L, Parker S, Reider JM. Clinical inquiries. What findings distinguish acute bacterial sinusitis? J Fam Pract. 2003; 52(7): 563-5[PubMed]
14. Browning GG. Antibiotics for acute sinusitis in general practice. Entry criteria were too dissimilar for studies to be combined for meta-analysis. BMJ. 1999; 318(7198): 1623-4[PubMed]
15. Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherris JCT, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966; 45(4): 493
16. Shanmugam S, Selvarajan R, Thangiah S. Drug resistance of Staphylococcus aureus in sinusitis patients. Int J Biosci. 2011; 1(3): 63-71
17. Bokaeian M, Khazaei HA, Javadimehr M. Nasopharyngeal Carriage, Antibiotic Resistance and Serotype Distribution of Streptococcus Pneumoniae among Healthy Adolescents in Zahedan. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2011; 13(5): 328-33[PubMed]
18. Hashemi M, Mir Mohammad Sadeghi M, Omrani MR, Torabi MA. Microbiology and antimicrobial resistance in chronic resistant rhino sinusitis with or without polyp after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Res Med Sci. 2005; 10(3): 167-71
19. Kingdom TT, Swain RE, Jr. The microbiology and antimicrobial resistance patterns in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Otolaryngol. 2004; 25(5): 323-8[PubMed]
20. Brook I, Thompson DH, Frazier EH. Microbiology and management of chronic maxillary sinusitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994; 120(12): 1317-20[PubMed]
21. Klossek JM, Dubreuil L, Richet H, Richet B, Sedallian A, Beutter P. Bacteriology of the adult middle meatus. J Laryngol Otol. 1996; 110(9): 847-9[PubMed]
22. Gordts F, Halewyck S, Pierard D, Kaufman L, Clement PA. Microbiology of the middle meatus: a comparison between normal adults and children. J Laryngol Otol. 2000; 114(3): 184-8[PubMed]
23. Ozcan M, Unal A, Aksaray S, Yalcin F, Akdeniz T. Correlation of middle meatus and ethmoid sinus microbiology in patients with chronic sinusitis. Rhinology. 2002; 40(1): 24-7[PubMed]
24. Brook I, Frazier EH, Foote PA. Microbiology of chronic maxillary sinusitis: comparison between specimens obtained by sinus endoscopy and by surgical drainage. J Med Microbiol. 1997; 46(5): 430-2[PubMed]
25. Brook I, Frazier EH, Foote PA. Microbiology of the transition from acute to chronic maxillary sinusitis. J Med Microbiol. 1996; 45(5): 372-5[PubMed]
26. Wald ER. Microbiology of acute and chronic sinusitis in children and adults. Am J Med Sci. 1998; 316(1): 13-20[PubMed]
27. Van Cauwenberge PB, Ingels KJ, Bachert C, Wang DY. Microbiology of chronic sinusitis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 1997; 51(4): 239-46[PubMed]
28. Brook I. Bacteriology of chronic maxillary sinusitis in adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1989; 98(6): 426-8[PubMed]
29. Biel MA, Brown CA, Levinson RM, Garvis GE, Paisner HM, Sigel ME, et al. Evaluation of the microbiology of chronic maxillary sinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1998; 107(11 Pt 1): 942-5[PubMed]
30. Finegold SM, Flynn MJ, Rose FV, Jousimies-Somer H, Jakielaszek C, McTeague M, et al. Bacteriologic findings associated with chronic bacterial maxillary sinusitis in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 35(4): 428-33[DOI][PubMed]

Avicenna Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Published by: Kowsar

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Aerobic Organisms in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Hamadan, Iran

Abstract

1. Background

3. Patients and Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

Acknowledgements

Footnote

References

Share This Article on: