• RCCSE中国核心学术期刊(A+)
  • 中国百强报刊
  • 百种中国杰出学术期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊
  • 中国高校百佳科技期刊
  • 中国自然科学类核心期刊
  • 中国科技论文统计源期刊
  • 中华医学会优秀期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊顶尖学术论文(5000)项目来源期刊
  • 入选中国高质量科技期刊分级目录(消化病学)T1级
  • 入选《中国学术期刊影响因子年报(自然科学与工程技术)》Q1区
  • 入选《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告(2022)》
  • RCCSE中国核心学术期刊(A+)
  • 中国百强报刊
  • 百种中国杰出学术期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊
  • 中国高校百佳科技期刊
  • 中国自然科学类核心期刊
  • 中国科技论文统计源期刊
  • 中华医学会优秀期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊顶尖学术论文(5000)项目来源期刊
  • 入选中国高质量科技期刊分级目录(消化病学)T1级
  • 入选《中国学术期刊影响因子年报(自然科学与工程技术)》Q1区
  • 入选《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告(2022)》
Hui Peng1, Zhu Peng2, Liao Wei2, et al. Bacterial flora distribution and antimicrobial resistance of pyogenic liver abscess: a multicenter retrospective study (A report of 897 cases)[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2019, 18(10): 924-933. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2019.10.007
Citation: Hui Peng1, Zhu Peng2, Liao Wei2, et al. Bacterial flora distribution and antimicrobial resistance of pyogenic liver abscess: a multicenter retrospective study (A report of 897 cases)[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2019, 18(10): 924-933. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2019.10.007

Bacterial flora distribution and antimicrobial resistance of pyogenic liver abscess: a multicenter retrospective study (A report of 897 cases)

More Information
  • Objective:To investigate the bacterial flora distribution and antimicrobial resistance of patients with pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) in multi-centers of China.
    Methods:The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinical data of 897 patients with PLA at 3 medical centers in China from October 2007 to April 2018 were collected, including 656 cases in the First Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 109 cases in Tongji Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology and 132 cases in the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital of Naval Military Medical University. There were 582 males and 315 females, aged (59±11)years, with a range of 6-86 years. Observation indicators: (1) bacterial flora distribution; (2) bacterial resistance. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD and measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M (range). Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages.
    Results:(1) Bacterial flora distribution: among 897 patients, 733 cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae, 75 cases of Escherichia coli, 11 cases of Staphylococcus aureus, 10 cases of Streptococcus viridians, 9 cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae, 7 cases of β-emolytic streptococcus, 6 cases of Acinetobacter baumannii, 5 cases of Streptococcus intermadius, 5 cases of Enterococcus faecium, 3 cases of Alcaligenes xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans, 2 cases of Proteus mirabilis, 2 cases of Streptococcus isthmus, 2 cases of Enterobacter cloacae subsp. cloacae, 1 case of Citrobacter koseri, 1 case of Proteus vulgaris, 1 case of Pasteurella pneumotropica, 1 case of Curobacter freudii, 1 case of Enterobacter amnigenus, 1 case of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, 1 case of Acinetobacter lwoffii, 1 case of Streptococcus salivarius, 1 case of Streptococcus bacterium, 1 case of Enterococcus avium, 1 case of Enterococcus faecalis, 1 case of Klebsiella oxytoca, and 1 case of Staphylococcus epidermidis were cultured in the pus respectively. There were 12 cases of double bacterial infection, and 2 cases of multiple bacterial infections. (2) Bacterial resistance. ① Resistance of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli: the drug resistance rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae to ampicillin, piperacillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotetan, cefepime, cefoxitin, amoxicillin/carat Retinoic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, tigaricycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole were 99.79%(474/475), 4.09%(7/171), 12.18%(82/673), 7.34%(49/668), 2.34%(4/171), 1.96%(11/562), 5.85%%(10/171), 0(0/562), 0.55%(4/733), 1.42%(9/635), 0(0/733), 2.46%(18/733), 0.55%(4/733), 0.27%(2/733), 1.36%(10/733), 0.14%(1/733), 0(0/733), 0.36%(2/562), 0.95%(7/733), 0.41%(3/733), 0(0/733), 0(0/562), 1.64%(12/733), 0.95%(7/733), and 4.50%(33/733), respectively. The drug resistance rates of Escherichia coli to above antibiotics were 78.67%(59/75), 40.91%(18/44), 65.33%(49/75), 56.00%(42/75), 38.64%(17/44), 41.94%(13/31), 20.00%(15/75), 3.23%(1/31), 25.33%(19/75), 5.77%(3/52), 18.67%(14/75), 32.00%(24/75), 8.00%(6/75), 16.00%(12/75), 37.33%(28/75), 1.33%(1/75), 0(0/75), 0(0/31), 40.00%(30/75), 14.67%(11/75), 1.33%(1/75), 0(0/31), 54.67%(41/75), 37.33%(28/75), and 52.00%(39/75), respectively. ② Drug resistance of other Gram-negative bacteria: the drug resistance rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae to ampicillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotetan, cefepime, amoxicillin/carat Retinoic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole were 8/8, 0/5, 0/5, 0/1, 0/9, 0/2, 0/9, 0/8, 0/9, 0/9, 0/6, 0/9, 0/9, 0/7, 0/1, 0/9, 0/8, 0/9, 0/9, 0/9, and 0/9. The drug resistance rates of Acinetobacter baumannii to ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, meropenem, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, tigaricycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole were 2/6, 4/6, 3/6, 0/6, 4/6, 1/6, 2/6, 4/6, 2/6, 4/6, 4/6, 3/6, 0/6, 4/6, 2/6, and 3/6, respectively. The drug resistance rates of Alcaligenes xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans to ampicillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, amoxicillin/carat Retinoic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, aztreonam, imipenem, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin were 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, 0/3, 3/3, 2/3, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, 3/3, and 1/3. ③ Drug resistance of other Gram-positive bacteria: the drug resistance rates of Staphylococcus aureus to penicillin, ampicillin, piperacillin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, cefoxitin, amoxicillin/carat Retinoic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, meropenem, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, tetracycline, tigaricycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole, linezolid, erythromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin, teicoplanin, and rifampin were 2/6, 6/8, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4/5, 3/5, 2/5, 2/5, 3/8, 3/5, 3/5, 0/8, 0/8, 3/8, 3/11, 0/5, 1/8, 0/8, 0/8, 2/6, 3/3, 1/3, and 0/3. The drug resistance rates of Streptococcus viridians to penicillin, ampicillin, ceftriaxone, cefoperazone/sulbactam, gentamicin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, erythromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin, teicoplanin, and rifampin were 3/10, 0/8, 0/7, 0/7, 2/8, 6/10, 0/8, 0/8, 0/7, 0/5, 4/10, 6/10, 0/5, 0/5, and 0/3. The drug resistance rates of β-emolytic streptococcus to antibacterial agents were 0. ④ Drug resistance of complex bacteria. For the 12 patients with double bacterial infection, in the Klebsiella pneumoniae combined with Gram-negative bacteria, the drug resistance rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae to cefotetan, cefoxitin, ampicillin/sulbactam, meropenem, ertapenem, tobramycin, tigecycline, and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole were 0. The drug resistance rates of Acinetobacter baumannii to ertapenem, levofloxacin, and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole were 0. The drug resistance rates of Escherichia coli to ceftazidime, cefoxitin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem, tobramycin, amikacin, and tigecycline were 0. Citrobacter florida was sensitive to other antibiotics than levofloxacin and trimethoprim cotrimoxazole. In the Escherichia coli combined with Gram-positive bacteria, the drug resistance rates of Escherichia coli to cefotetan, cefepime, cefoxitin, cefoperazone/sulbactam, meropenem, tobramycin, and amikacin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Enterococcus faecalis to penicillin, ampicillin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, vancomycin, and teicoplanin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Enterococcus casselifavus to ampicillin, tetracycline, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, and erythromycin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Staphylococcus hominis subspecies to levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, vancomycin, teicoplanin, and rifampicin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Enterococcus faecium to tetracycline,linezolid, vancomycin, and teicoplanin were 0. In the multiple bacterial infections of Klebsiella pneumoniae + Escherichia coli + Staphylococcus aureus subspecies + Pseudomonas aeruginosa + Torulopsis glabrata, the drug resistance rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae to ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotetan, cefepime, cefoxitin, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, tobramycin, amikacin, and levofloxacin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Escherichia coli to ceftazidime, cefotetan, cefepime, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, and amikacin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Staphylococcus aureus subspecies to ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotetan, cefepime, ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, tobramycin, amikacin, tigecycline, moxifloxacin, cotrimoxazole, teicoplanin, vancomycin, linezolid, and clindamycin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Torulopsis glabrata to 5-fluorocytosine, fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole were 0. In the multiple bacterial infections of Klebsiella pneumoniae + Escherichia coli + Acinetobacter baumannii, the drug resistance rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae to cefotetan, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, ertapenem, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin were 0. The drug resistance rates of Escherichia coli to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem were 0. The drug resistance ratets of Acinetobacter baumannii to trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole was 0.
    Conclusions: Klebsiella pneumoniae is the main pathogen of PLA, followed by Escherichia coli. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli are sensitive to meropenem and tigecycline. Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae and other Gram-negative bacteria are sensitive to ertapenem. Staphylococcus aureus are sensitive to Linezolid. Antibiotics are selected after drug sensitivity test for patients.

  • Related Articles

    [1]Multicenter rectal cancer real-world database construction and data quality control strategies[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2025, 24(1): 77-81. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20241214-00557
    [2]Huang Tingfeng, Liu Hongzhi, Lin Kongying, Tang Shichuan, Fu Jun, Lin Qizhu, Fan Ruilin, Zhou Weiping, Li Jingdong, Li Jiangtao, Zeng Yongyi. The impact of lymph node dissection on textbook outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarci-noma and prognostic analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2024, 23(7): 944-951. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20240524-00261
    [3]Sun Dawei, Jiang Wentao, Zhong Lin, Cai Jinzhen, Guo Wenzhi, Lyu Guoyue. Clinical efficacy of liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter study[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2023, 22(2): 230-235. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20221219-00753
    [4]Zheng Huijun, Chen Cunrong, Luo Haoteng, Chang Zhigang, Feng Zhe, Zhang Jingyao, Zhao Shuo, Duan Jun, Li Tao, Li Weiqin, Ke Lu, Tong Zhihui, Jiang Zhengying, Wu Guixin, Liu Zhiyong, Zhang Junwei, Yang Na, Wang Donghai, Guo Feng. Clinical characteristics and influencing factors for mortality of patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis: a multicenter retrospective study[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2021, 20(11): 1177-1183. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20210918-00469
    [5]Hu Xin, Chen Ronggao, Meng Jinwen, Zhuang Li, Liu Peng, Zhou Zhisheng, Cai Jinzhen, Zheng Shusen, Xu Xiao. Prognosis and influencing factors analysis of liver transplantation elderly recipients: a multicenter study[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2021, 20(10): 1047-1054. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20210909-00446
    [6]Qin Changfu, Chen Jie, Shen Yingmo, Cheng Lili, Li Guangxing. Treatment analysis and epidemiological study on external abdominal hernia based on the Hernia Registry in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2021, 20(7): 785-789. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20210616-00282
    [7]Zhang Dong1, Li Qi1, Zhang Xiaodi2, Jia Pengbo3, Wang Xintuan3, Geng Xilin4, Zhang Yu4, Li Junhui5, Yao Chunhe6, Liu Yimin7, Guo Zhihua7, Yang Rui8, Lei Da9, Yang Chenglin10, Hao Qiwei11, Yang Wenbin5, Geng Zhimin1. A multicenter retrospective study on surgical indications of gallbladder polyps: a report of 2272 cases[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2020, 19(8): 824-834. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200605-00420
    [8]Yu Xianjun, Shi Si. Key points of clinical trials of pancreatitis: enlightenment from ESCAPE study[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2020, 19(4): 384-387. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200301-00135
    [9]Gong Peng, Liu Peng, Zhang Xianbin, Geng Zhimin, Zhai Wenlong, Qiu Yinghe, Song Tianqiang, He Yu, Li Jingdong, Li Shengping, Tang Zhaohui.. Diagnosis and treatment of unexpected gallbladder carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study (A report of 223 cases)[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2018, 17(3): 252-256. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2018.03.008
    [10]Chen Hao, Yang Bolin, Yang Guang, Jin Chunmin, Zhang Bei, Wu Kunlan, Chen Hongjin, Sun Shangying, Jin Heiying.. Multicenter prospective study of ligation of the intersphicteric fistula tract in the treatment of transsphincteric fistula[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2016, 15(8): 825-829. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2016.08.013

Catalog

    Article views (8556) PDF downloads (0) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return