Skip to main content
Download PDF

Biofilm and metallo beta-lactamase production among the strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal

Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials volume 16, Article number: 70 (2017) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. are found to be associated with biofilm and metallo-β-lactamase production and are the common causes of serious infections mainly in hospitalized patients. So, the main aims of this study were to determine the rates of biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production (MBL) among the strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. isolated from hospitalized patients.

Methods

A total of 85 P. aeruginosa isolates and 50 Acinetobacter spp. isolates isolated from different clinical specimens from patients admitted to Shree Birendra Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal from July 2013 to May 2014 were included in this study. The bacterial isolates were identified with the help of biochemical tests. Modified Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion technique was used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Combined disc diffusion technique was used for the detection of MBL production, while Congo red agar method and tube adherence method were used for detection of biofilm production.

Results

Around 16.4% of P. aeruginosa isolates and 22% of the strains of Acinetobacter spp. were metallo β-lactamase producers. Out of 85 P. aeruginosa isolates, 23 (27.05%) were biofilm producers according to tube adherence test while, only 13 (15.29%) were biofilm producers as per Congo red agar method. Similarly, out of 50 Acinetobacter spp. 7 (14%) isolates were biofilm producers on the basis of tube adherence test, while only 5 (10%) were positive for biofilm production by Congo red agar method. Highest rates of susceptibility of P. aeruginosa as well as Acinetobacter spp. were seen toward colistin.

Conclusion

In our study, biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production were observed among Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. However, no statistically significant association could be established between biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production.

Introduction

With the emergence of carbapenemase (mainly metallo-β-lactamase) producing bacterial strains, the clinical utility of carbapenem as reserve drug is under threat [1]. Such bacterial strains have emerged all over the world and show high-level resistance to all β-lactams except aztreonam [2]. Antimicrobial resistance associated with biofilm production presents a serious threat in clinical practice in case of biofilm associated infections [3, 4]. Biofilm producers produce an extracellular matrix of polysaccharides which act as a protective jacket for the bacteria within biofilms, preventing diffusion of antibiotics, immune cells and host proteins [5]. Thus, it is of utmost importance to screen for biofilm production among clinical isolates. The first step in the treatment of biofilm associated infections is the detection of biofilms and it needs to be incorporated as a routine laboratory procedure. Antibiotics used for the treatment of such infections should be directed against the biofilms rather than the planktonic forms [6]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. are the common causes of life threatening infections mainly in hospitalized patients [7]. In addition, biofilm and metallo-β-lactamase production among these bacteria may present as serious problem to the treatment of the infections caused by them. In this study, we determined the rates of biofilm production and MBL production among the strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. Further, we determined the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of these organisms.

Methods

A total of 85 P. aeruginosa isolates and 50 Acinetobacter spp. isolates, isolated from different clinical specimens from patients admitted to Shree Birendra Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal from July 2013 to May 2014 were included in this study. The bacterial isolates were identified on the basis of the microbiological procedures as described in the Bergey’s manual of determinative bacteriology and were further evaluated for MBL production by combined disk diffusion method using imipenem and imipenem/ethylenediaminetetraacetate discs. Similarly, biofilm production was detected by tube adherence method and Congo red agar method [8, 9]. Modified Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion technique was used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing following clinical and laboratory standards institute guidelines 2013. The bacteria showing resistance to at least three different classes of antibiotics were taken as MDR. Statistical package for the social sciences version 16.0. was used for data analysis. Chi square test was applied and p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Of the total 85 P. aeruginosa isolates, 14 (16.4%) were metallo β-lactamase producers, while of the 50 Acinetobacter spp. 11 (22%) were metallo β-lactamase producers.

Out of 85 P. aeruginosa isolates, 23 (27.05%) were biofilm producers according to tube adherence test, while only 13 (15.29%) were biofilm producers as per Congo red agar method. Similarly, out of 50 Acinetobacter spp. 7 (14%) isolates were biofilm producers on the basis of tube adherence test while, only 5 (10%) were positive for biofilm production by Congo red agar method. Of the total 14 MBL producing P. aeruginosa isolates, only 2 were biofilm producers on the basis of Congo red agar method, whereas 4 were biofilm producers as per tube adherence method. Similarly, of total 11 MBL producing strains of Acinetobacter spp., only 2 were biofilm producers on the basis of Congo red agar method, whereas 1 was biofilm producer as per tube adherence method. Highest rate of susceptibility of P. aeruginosa was seen toward colistin (83.5%) followed by netilmycin (71.9%). Lowest rate of susceptibility was seen toward cefepime (22.4%). Highest rate of susceptibility of Acinetobacter spp. was seen toward colistin (74%) followed by netilmicin (70%). Lowest rate of susceptibility was seen toward ceftriaxone (6%) (Table 1). Of the total P. aeruginosa isolates, 56 (65.8%) were multidrug resistant, while of the total Acinetobacter spp. isolates, 45 (90%) were multidrug resistant. Higher rates of drug resistance were seen among biofilm producers in comparison to biofilm non producers but the correlation was statistically insignificant.

Table 1 Antibiotic susceptibility patterns of Acinetobacter spp. and P. aeruginosa
Full size table

Similarly, no statistically significant association between biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production could be established.

Discussion

Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. are common causes of life threatening infections mainly in hospitalized patients. Further, the biofilm production and the metallo-β-lactamase production among these bacteria have further aggravated the problem. Infections with multidrug resistant P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. are of serious concern mainly in admitted patients [7].

In this study, 16.4% of P. aeruginosa were metallo β-lactamase producers which was in agreement with the finding by Kali et al. (16.3%) [10]. Similar rate of MBL production among Acinetobacter spp. as in our study was also reported by Lee et al. (15.1%) [11].

Polymyxin B and colistin have been reported to demonstrate reasonable success in treatment of infections caused by MBL producing Acinetobacter spp. and P. aeruginosa. However, due to their high toxicity, polymyxins are used for the treatment of only serious infections caused by pan-resistant Gram negative bacilli [12]. A study in Thailand showed that all the multidrug resistant P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. were susceptible to polymyxin B and colistin [13].

Very high rates of biofilm production in comparison to our study were reported by Rewatkar and Wadher among the strains of P. aeruginosa (90% by Congo red agar method and 83.33% by tube adherence method) [14] and by Badave and Kulkarni among the isolates of Acinetobacter spp. (65.2%) [15].

In our study, no statistically significant association between biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production along with antimicrobial resistance could be established, which was in contrast to the findings by Heydari and Eftekhar [16] and Singhai et al. [17]. However, higher rates of drug resistance were seen among biofilm producers in comparison to biofilm non producers. Though higher numbers of biofilm producers were detected by tube adherence method in comparison to Congo red agar method but the correlation was statistically insignificant. The lack of significance might be due to small sample size taken in our study.

Though the higher numbers of biofilm producers were detected by tube adherence method in our study, due to the simplicity and cost effectiveness of the Congo red agar method [8] in comparison to tube adherence method, it is more appropriate for laboratory use in the developing countries like Nepal. In addition, its sensitivity and specificity have been reported to be 89% and 100% respectively, when compared to polymerase chain reaction as standard [9]. Similarly, those for tube adherence method were 100% [9].

Limitations of the study

Due to lack of resources we could not use molecular techniques in our study. Further, this is a uni-center study; multi-center study with large sample size would have generated more reliable results.

Conclusions

In our study, biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production were observed among Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. However, no statistically significant association could be established between biofilm production and metallo beta-lactamase production.

Abbreviations

MBL:

metallo beta-lactamase production

EDTA:

ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

References

  1. Mahajan G, Sheemar S, Chopra S, Kaur J, Chowdhary D, Makhija SK. Carbapenem resistance and phenotypic detection of carbapenemases in clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Indian J Med Sci. 2011;65(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrade SS, Picao RC, Campana EH, Nicoletti AG, Pignatari AC, Gales AC. Influence of disk preparation on detection of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing isolates by the combined disk assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(6):2058–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoiby N, Ciofu O, Johansen HK, Song ZJ, Moser C, Jensen PO, et al. The clinical impact of bacterial biofilms. Int J Oral Sci. 2011;3(2):55–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hall MR, McGillicuddy E, Kaplan LJ. Biofilm: basic principles, pathophysiology, and implications for clinicians. Surg Infect. 2014;15(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kokare CR, Chakraborty S, Khopade AN, Mahadik KR. Biofilm: importance and applications. IJBT. 2009;8:159–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kostakioti M, Hadjifrangiskou M, Hultgren SJ. Bacterial biofilms: development, dispersal, and therapeutic strategies in the dawn of the postantibiotic era. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013;3(4):a010306.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Navon-Venezia S, Ben-Ami R, Carmeli Y. Update on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii infections in the healthcare setting. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):306–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman DJ, Falkiner FR, Keane CT. New method for detecting slime production by coagulase negative staphylococci. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42(8):872–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Oliveira A, Cunha Mde L. Comparison of methods for the detection of biofilm production in coagulase-negative staphylococci. BMC Res Notes. 2010;3(260):1756–60.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kali A, Srirangaraj S, Kumar S, Divya HA, Kalyani A, Umadevi S. Detection of metallo-beta-lactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in intensive care units. Australas Med J. 2013;6(12):686–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee K, Ha GY, Shin BM, Kim JJ, Kang JO, Jang SJ, et al. Metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli in Korean Nationwide Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance group hospitals in 2003: continued prevalence of VIM-producing Pseudomonas spp. and increase of IMP-producing Acinetobacter spp. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;50(1):51–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee SY, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Polymyxins: older antibiotics for a new threat. Conn Med. 2006;70(1):25–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koomanachai P, Tiengrim S, Kiratisin P, Thamlikitkul V. Efficacy and safety of colistin (colistimethate sodium) for therapy of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii in Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Int J Infect Dis. 2007;11(5):402–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rewatkar AR, Wadher BJ. Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa—biofilm formation methods. IOSR-JPBS. 2013;8(5):36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Badave GK, Kulkarni D. Biofilm producing multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: an emerging challenge. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heydari S, Eftekhar F. Biofilm formation and β-lactamase production in burn isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2015;8(3):e15514.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Singhai M, Rawat V, Goyal R. Concomitant detection of biofilm and metallo-beta-lactamases production in Gram-negative bacilli. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2013;56(3):276–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

NDP designed the study, carried out the research works, analyzed data, and prepared the manuscript. BB, SN and UNY designed the study, carried out the research works, and analyzed the data. SK and NB contributed in analysis of the data. RK, SB, RC monitored the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank, Kantipur college of medical science, Kathmandu, Nepal and Shree Birendra Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal, for providing the opportunity to conduct this research. The authors would also like to thank all the patients and the technical staffs for their help during the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The data related to this study can be made available by the authors of this article if requested.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Funding

To conduct this study no fund was obtained from any sources.

Publisher’s Note

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, Kantipur College of Medical Science, Sitapaila, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Bandana Baniya & Rama Khadka

  2. Department of Microbiology, Grande International Hospital, Dhapasi, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Narayan Dutt Pant

  3. Central Department of Microbiology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Sanjeev Neupane

  4. Department of Biochemistry, Modern Technical College, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Saroj Khatiwada

  5. Forum for Health Research and Development, Dharan, Nepal

    Uday Narayan Yadav

  6. Department of Biotechnology, University of Madras, Chennai, India

    Nisha Bhandari

  7. Department of Microbiology, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Syanobharyang, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Sabita Bhatta & Raina Chaudhary

Authors
  1. Bandana Baniya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Narayan Dutt Pant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanjeev Neupane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saroj Khatiwada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Uday Narayan Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nisha Bhandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rama Khadka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sabita Bhatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Raina Chaudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narayan Dutt Pant.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This 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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baniya, B., Pant, N.D., Neupane, S. et al. 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 16, 70 (2017). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12941-017-0245-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12941-017-0245-6

Keywords

Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials

ISSN: 1476-0711

Contact us