JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Internal Medicine Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2021/46883.14501
Year : 2021 | Month : Feb | Volume : 15 | Issue : 02 Full Version Page : OC05 - OC09

Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Tracheal Aspirates in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

N Shashikala1, Mythri Shankar2, NS Madhura3, KM Mythri4, R Kowsalya5

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Institute of Nephro-Urology, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Nephrology, Institute of Nephro-Urology, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Institute of Nephro-Urology, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
4 Professor, Department of Microbiology, Institute of Nephro-Urology, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
5 Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Institute of Nephro-Urology, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Mythri Shankar, 926, 22nd Cross, 5th Main, Sector 7, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560102, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: mythri.nish@gmail.com
Abstract

Introduction

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a chronic inflammatory state, which inturn suppresses the immune system. CKD patients are hence at more risk for nosocomial infections. Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is one of the major nosocomial infections. If not treated early and appropriately, it increases hospital stay and expenses in turn increasing morbidity and mortality. In recent times, due to irrational and rampant use of antibiotics, there is an emergence of multidrug resistant strains of organisms which are difficult to treat.

Aim

To study the clinical and microbiological profile of tracheal aspirate samples in CKD patients.

Materials and Methods

It was a retrospective cross divtional study conducted in the renal Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a Tertiary Care Centre, Institute of Nephrourology, Bengaluru over a period of two years from July 2018 to July 2020. Clinical and demographic data of patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria was recorded. Tracheal aspirates were obtained by convenient sampling technique. The samples were cultured on Blood Agar (BA), chocolate agar, MacConkey agar and Sabouraud’s Dextrose Agar (SDA). Antibiotic sensitivity profiling was done by using Mueller Hinton agar. Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package For The Social Sciences (SPSS) V23.0 software.

Results

Sixty-nine samples were analysed over a period of two years. Males (66.66%) were in majority. Diabetes Mellitus (64%) was the most common associated risk factor. Among the total samples obtained, around 70% showed bacterial growth. Gram negative bacteria (92.4%) were the most commonly isolated microorganism. Among the Gram-negative bacteria, Acinetobacter baumanni (45.3%) was the most common followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae. Majority of the gram negative organisms were sensitive to Polymyxin B, colistin, tigecycline. Acinetobacter and Klebsiella showed resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins, aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones.

Conclusion

There is emergence of extremely drug resistant gram negative organisms as the cause for VAP. They are dangerous and difficult to treat. They thus increase the hospital expenses by prolonging the hospital stay. Hence, the need of the hour is to formulate an appropriate antibiotic policy based on the population being treated and to follow strict infection control practices in ICU setup.

Keywords

Introduction

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a major public health problem to handle in developing nations like India [1]. Patients with CKD usually have other co-morbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension which adds to both financial burden as well as increase in morbidity [1]. Complications of CKD are reduced immunity, anemia, malnutrition, inflammation, vitamin deficiencies and poor quality of life [2]. Also, patients on prolonged haemodialysis have reduced immunity and are more prone for nosocomial infections [3]. Nosocomial infection has been a burden on the healthcare system. It prolongs the duration of stay in the hospital. It increases the morbidity and mortality rate [4]. Ventilation associated pneumonia is one of the major types of nosocomial infections. It is associated with Endotracheal (ET) intubation and mechanical ventilation [5-8]. The tube present in the trachea causes ciliary damage and hence reduces bacterial clearance. Eventually, there is leakage around the tracheal cuff [9]. Reduced salivary flow and increased risk of mucositis in intubated patients also increased the risk for VAP [10]. There is also formation of biofilm around the ET tube. This predisposes to infections by Gram negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli (E.coli) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [10,11]. The overall prevalence of VAP is between 4% to 28% [12]. Compared to patients who are not on ventilator, the incidence of pneumonia is 21 times higher in patients who are on ventilator [12-16].

The causative organisms vary from one place to another. Most commonly associated organisms are gram negative bacilli such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli (E.coli), Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae [17] and gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus [18]. Due to inadvertent use of antibiotics, there has been a surge in multidrug resistant organisms such as carbapenem resistant bacteria in recent times [17]. Endotracheal Aspiration (ETA) helps in detecting the bacteria which is responsible for febrile episodes in mechanically ventilated patients and also VAP. It is easy to perform, reliable, inexpensive, minimally invasive and a bedside test. Healthcare workers can be easily trained to collect ETA [19]. There is no data on microbiological profile of tracheal aspirates in CKD population with VAP. Hence, the aim was to study the microbiological profile and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of tracheal aspirate cultures in mechanically ventilated CKD patients.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective study conducted at Institute of Nephro-Urology, a tertiary care referral hospital inside Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore. The data from July 2018 to July 2020 was retrieved from patients’ medical records. The process of data retrieving and analysis was performed from January 2020 to July 2020.

Inclusion criteria: All CKD patients admitted in Renal Intensive care unit

CKD stage 3 and above

On mechanical ventilation for a minimum of two calender days on the day of event, with day of ventilator placement being day one,

Having a temperature of >38 degree Celsius or <36 degree Celsius.

Leukopenia or leukocytosis

Purulent tracheal secretions

New onset radiographic features [13].

Exclusion criteria:

Patients who expired within of two calendar days on the day of event, with day of ventilator placement being Day one,

Patients who were discharged against medical advice within 48 hours of mechanical ventilation

Patients presenting with pneumonia at the time of admission.

A total of 69 samples of ETA were received in Microbiology laboratory and processed immediately using standard microbiological procedures ike microscopy, culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

The samples were first subjected to Gram’s staining and observed for the presence of number of pus cells and epithelial cells for assessing the clinical significance of sample as per Bartlett criteria, based on the relative number of Squamous Epithelial Cells (SEC) and inflammatory cells, seen microscopically per Low-power field (LPF). As per the criteria, a Q score which is a sum of +/- assigned values was calculated. A score of +2 is assigned, if White Blood Cells (WBCs) were more than 25/LPF and a score of +1, if 10-25 per LPF.

A score of -2 was assigned if the SEC were more than 25 per LPF and a score of -1 if 10 to 25 per LPF. A “+” Q score indicates that the quality of the specimen is acceptable, whereas a “-” or 0 Q score indicates excessive oral contamination and an unacceptable sample [20,21]. Irrespective of the Q score, the samples were processed using standard semi quantitative culture methods [22].

ETA samples were mechanically liquefied and homogenised by vortexing for one minute with 1 mL of 0.9% saline solution. The samples were then inoculated using semiquantitative calibrated loop method on 5% defibrinated sheep BA, Chocolate Agar (CA), MacConkey agar and SDA for quantifying the colony forming units per milliliter (cfu/mL) [22].

BA and chocolate agar plates were incubated in candle jar and the other plates in standard bacteriological incubator at 37°C. SDA plates were inoculated in duplicate and incubated at both, 37°C and at room temperature for up to one week as per standard guidelines [21,22]. Plates were evaluated for growth at 24 and 48 hours [22].

Following incubation, the colonies were quantified and identified using standard biochemical tests. Colony forming units of ≥105 cfu/mL were considered significant for tracheal aspirates and ≥104 cfu/mL for bronchoalveolar lavage [23].

All microorganisms were identified using standard laboratory methods [21]. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed and interpreted by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method as per current CLSI guidelines with appropriate quality control protocol [24].

Statistical Analysis

SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, US) software was used for data entry and analysis. Frequencies and percentages were calculated using descriptive statistics. Tables and charts were constructed using Microsoft Excel and Word. Chi square test was used to calculate p-value for age and gender statistics. p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

A total of 69 patients with underlying CKD were included during the study period. Out of which, 46 (66.66%) were males and 23 (33.34%) were females [Table/Fig-1]. There was no significant difference between males and females among patients showing blood culture growths (p-value=0.793). Most of the patients were in the age group between 18 to 35 years (39.13%) [Table/Fig-2]. There was no significant difference based on age group (p-value=0.123).

Gender distrubution of study population.

GrowthMalesFemalesTotal
Present271542
Absent19827
Total462369

Chi square test p-value=0.793


Age distrubution of study population.

Age (Years)Growth presentGrowth absentTotal
18 to 35161127
36 to 5015217
More than 5017825
Total482169

Chi square test p-value=0.123


Predisposing risk factors such as Diabetes mellitus (64%) was seen in the majority of patients in present study, followed by alcohol abuse (45%) and hypertension (42%) [Table/Fig-3].

Associated risk factors (N=69).

Risk factorn (%)
Diabetes mellitus44 (64)
Hypertension29 (42)
COPD18 (26)
Alcohol intake31 (45)
Prolonged ICU stay8 (12)

COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease


Out of the total 69 samples, 69.56% (48) were culture positive with significant bacterial growth (colony count >105/mL). Out of the positive cultures, 5 (10.41%) were polymicrobial and 43 (89.58%) were monomicrobial growths [Table/Fig-4].

Total number of tracheal culture.

Total growth n (%)No growth n (%)
48 (69.56)21 (30.43)

The total isolates were 53. Predominant isolates were gram negative bacteria 49 (92.4%) followed by fungal species (6%) and gram-positive cocci (2%) [Table/Fig-5]. Among the gram negative bacteria, most common was Acinetobacter baumannii (45%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (23%) and Escherichia coli (11%). Other less commonly found organisms were gram negative non fermenting bacilli (7%) and Enterobacter species (6%) [Table/Fig-5].

Microbiological profile of tracheal aspirates (N=53).

Organismsn (%)
Acinetobacter species24 (45)
Klebsiella pneumoniae12 (23)
Escherichia coli6 (11)
Non-fermenting gram negative bacilli4 (7)
Enterobacter species3 (6)
Staphylococcus aureus1 (2)
Candida albicans1 (2)
Candida non-albicans1 (2)
Trichosporon species1 (2)

Most of the gram-negative isolates were multidrug resistant. A total of 77.55% of the isolates were resistant to amikacin, 91.84% were resistant to cefotaxime and ceftazidime (3rd generation cephalosporins), 91.84% were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulinic acid (betalactam + betalactamase inhibitor combination) and 89.8% were resistant to ciprofloxacin (fluoroquinolone). Meropenem (carbapenem) resistance accounted to 73.5% [Table/Fig-6].

Antibiogram of gram-negative isolates (N=49).

AntibioticsSensitive n (%)Resistant n (%)
Amikacin11 (22.45)38 (77.55)
Gentamycin7 (14.29)42 (85.71)
Amoxicillin-Clavulinic acid4 (8.16)45 (91.84)
Cefotaxime (3rd generation Cephalosporins)4 (8.16)45 (91.84)
Ceftazidime (3rd Generation Cephalosporins)4 (8.16)45 (91.84)
Aztreonam4 (8.16)45 (91.84)
Ciprofloxacin5 (10.20)44 (89.80)
Levofloxacin10 (22.40)39 (77.60)
Cefoperazone-Sulbactum20 (40.80)29 (59.20)
Piperacillin-Tazobactum17 (34.70)32 (65.30)
Ertapenem16 (32.65)33 (67.35)
Imipenem12 (24.50)37 (75.50)
Meropenem13 (26.50)36 (73.50)
Colistin49 (100)0 (0.00)
Polymyxin B49 (100)0 (0.00)
Tigecycline48 (97.95)1 (2.04)

Among the 24 isolates of Acinetobacter baumanii, 95.8% was resistant to amikacin and gentamycin, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, amoxicillin-clavulinic acid and ciprofloxacin. Resistance to meropenem and imipenem (carbapenems) was seen in 83.68% of isolates [Table/Fig-7]. Among the 12 isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae, all were resistant to amikacin, gentamycin (aminoglycosides), cefotaxime, ceftazidime, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and ciprofloxacin. Resistance to meropenem, imipenem, ertapenem was 100% [Table/Fig-7]. E.coli showed variable sensitivity and resistance pattern. 16.6% resistant to amikacin and meropenem, 100% resistant to cefotaxime, ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin. [Table/Fig-7]. All isolates were sensitive to polymyxin B and colistin [Table/Fig-7].

Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of gram-negative bacteria.

AntibioticsAcinetobacter species n (%)Klebsiella pneumoniae n (%)Escherichia coli n (%)Non-fermenting gram negative bacilli n (%)Enterobacter species n (%)
Amikacin (Aminoglycoside)1 (4.20)0 (0)5 (83.33)2 (50)3 (100)
Gentamycin (Aminoglycoside)1 (4.20)0 (0)3 (50)1 (25)2 (66.67)
Amoxycillin-Clavulinic Acid (Betalactam + Betalactamase Inhibitor Combination)NA0 (0)1 (16.66)NA3 (100)
3rd Generation Cephalosporin (Cefotaxime)1 (4.20)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)3 (100)
3rd Generation Cephalosporin (Ceftazidime)1 (4.20)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)3 (100)
Aztreonam (Monobactam)1 (4.20)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)3 (100)
Ciprofloxacin (Fluoroquinolone)1 (4.20)0 (0)0 (0)1 (25)3 (100)
Levofloxacin (Fluoroquinolone)4 (16.80)0 (0)1 (16.66)2 (50)3 (100)
Cefoperazone-Sulbactum (Third-Generation Cephalosporin and Beta Lactamase Inhibitor)9 (37.50)0 (0)5 (83.33)3 (75)3 (100)
Piperacillin-Tazobactum (Penicillin and Beta Lactamase Inhibitor)10 (41.66)0 (0)3 (50)1 (25)3 (100)
Ertapenem (Carbapenem)8 (33.33)0 (0)3 (50)2 (50)3 (100)
Imipenem (Carbapenem)4 (16.32)0 (0)4 (66.67)1 (25)3 (100)
Meropenem (Carbapenem)4 (16.32)0 (0)5 (83.33)1 (25)3 (100)
Colistin (Colistimethate)24 (100)12 (100)6 (100)4 (100)3 (100)
Polymyxin B24 (100)12 (100)6 (100)4 (100)3 (100)
Tigecycline (Glycylcycline)23 (95.83)12 (100)6 (100)4 (100)3 (100)

All isolates of E.coli, Klebsiellapneumonia and Enterobacter species were sensitive to tigecycline. However, the study found one isolate of Acinetobacter baumannii which was resistant to tigecycline (4.17%) [Table/Fig-7]. Among the gram positive bacteria, only one strain of methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was isolated.

Antifungal sensitivity of fungal isolates.

AntifungalsSensitive n (%)Resistant n (%)
Fluconazole2 (66.70)1 (33.30)
Voriconazole3 (100)0
Amphotericin B3 (100)0
Caspofungin3 (100)0
Micafungin3 (100)0

Among the fungal isolates, one isolate each of Candida albicans, Candida non-albicans and Trichosporon species were isolated. A 33.33% of Candida species showed resistance to fluconazole. All were sensitive to voriconazole, amphotericin B, caspofungin and micafungin [Table/Fig-8].

Blood culture of ETA samples which did not isolate any organism was performed. No organisms were isolated. Five bacteria were isolated from blood samples of patients whose ETA samples isolated predominantly single bacteria [Table/Fig-9]. Only two of these blood cultures grew the same bacteria as the ETA culture (Acinetobacter baumanii and E.coli) [Table/Fig-10].

Entotracheal Aspirate (ETA) culture and blood culture results.

ETA culture resultNumber of positive blood culture/Total number of culture n (%)
No growth210 (0)
Polymicrobial growth51 (0.14)
Predominant growth of only one pathogen435 (7.24)

Positive blood culture whose ETA grew predominant pathogen.

Growth on ETA cultureGrowth on blood culture
Klebsiella PneumoniaeE.coli
Klebsiella PneumoniaeCandida non-albicans
AcinetobacterbaumaniiAcinetobacter baumanii
Non-fermenting gram negative BacilliCandida non-albicans
E.coliE.coli

ETA: Entotracheal aspirate


Discussion

Offlate, resistant strains are emerging in the clinical setting due to inadvertent use of antibiotics [25]. These resistant strains are a predominant cause of nosocomial infection of patients admitted in intensive care unit. Patients in ICU are subjected to invasive procedures such as mechanical ventilation which increases the risk of nosocomial infections [26]. If not treated early, VAP is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. For early and appropriate treatment, it is important that we have a good empirical antibiotic policy. Aetiological agents vary widely based on the study population. Predisposing risk factors such as Diabetes Mellitus (DM) (64%) [Table/Fig-3] was seen in the majority of patients in present study. In a study, by Dey A and Bairy I, [17], a total of 28 patients had co-morbidities out of which 15 (60%) had VAP. In another study by Rajasekhar T et al., prolonged hospital stay (73%) was the most common risk factor [27]. DM is the most common cause of CKD and is a proinflammatory state. Hence, it is the most common risk factor in this study. This study had a positive culture rate of 69.56% [Table/Fig-4]. A study by Simoni P et al., had a positive culture rate of 100% [28]. Cardenosa Cendrero JA et al., had a positive culture rate of 89% [29]. This difference in culture positivity rate can be due to the different study population or colonisation of the ET tube [30].

This study showed predominant growth of gram negative bacilli (92%) compared to gram positive cocci (2%) [Table/Fig-5]. This was in concordance with studies by Gupta P et al., and Chandra D et al., where in 86% and 85% of isolates were gram negative, respectively [31,32]. Also, a study by Ebenezer R et al., in burns patients demonstrated higher gram negative tracheal isolates compared to gram positive isolates [33]. There is increased incidence of gram negative species in nosocomial infections. They are difficult to treat and hence cause prolonged ICU stay. Acinetobacter baumannii was the predominant isolate in this study. In other studies by Caskurlu H et al., and Swati A et al., Acinetobacter species was the most common isolate [34,35]. This is due to its ability to spread easily by aerosols and high degree of resistance to the surrounding environment and antimicrobials [36].

The second most common isolate was Klebsiella pneumoniae followed by E.coli in this study. In a study, by Chandra D et al., Klebsiella (32.35%) was the second most common bacteria isolated [32]. In this study, all isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii were sensitive to Colistin and Polymyxin B (100%) [Table/Fig-7]. It showed 95.83% sensitivity to tigecycline and 37.5% sensitivity to cefoperazone-sulbactam. A study by Malik M et al., demonstrated 69% sensitivity to cefoperazone-sulbactam [37]. Anusha N et al., showed Acinetobacter was highly sensitive to ciprofloxacin and imipenem [38]. The emergence of multidrug resistant strains may be due to inadvertent use of antibiotics. This study showed Klebsiella pneumoniae to be 100% sensitive to colistin, polymyxin B and tigecycline [Table/Fig-7]. Ahmad H et al., showed Klebsiella pneumoniae to be sensitive to cefoperazone- sulbactam (81.8%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (71.4%) in their study [39]. Decrease in sensitivity of Klebsiella may be attributed to cross infections and unjust use of antibiotics [40]. In this study, other gram-negative bacilli such as E.coli and Enterobacter showed variable sensitivity profile. E.coli showed 83.33% sensitivity to aminoglycosides, cefaperazone-sulbactam and carbapenems. A study by Anusha N et al., showed similar results. E.coli was sensitive to amikacin and meropenem in their study [38].

In the total duration of two years, the study found only one isolate of gram-positive cocci, which was methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus. This is consistent with the study results of Gupta P et al., [31]. Analysis of the resistance profile in this study, showed Acinetobacter to be 95.8% resistant to aminoglycosides, third generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. A 83.68% were resistant to carbapenems. These results were consistent with the study results of Gupta P et al., and Ahmad H et al., [31,39]. One isolate of Acinetobacter was resistant to tigecycline in present study. This denotes an emergence of an alarming situation, wherein there is increased incidence of multidrug resistant and extremely drug resistant microorganisms in the tracheal aspirates which in turn increases their morbidity and mortality [17]. Other gram-negative isolates such as Klebsiella pneumoniae showed 100% resistance to aminoglycosides, third generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and carbapenems. E.coli and Enterobacter showed variable resistance patterns. They were sensitive to broad spectrum antibiotics. This is in concordance with the studies by Gupta P et al., and Malik M et al., [31,37]. This points to the fact that there is an increase in the rates of carbapenem resistance.

The number of islolates from blood cultures were different when compared to ETA samples which predominantly showed single isolate. However, same organism as that of the ETA cultures was isolated from only two blood culture [Table/Fig-9,10]. Other studies have demonstrated a correlation between 0% to 80% [41,42]. ICU infections are most commonly caused by multidrug resistant organisms. CKD population is already immunocompromised and increasingly susceptible for infections as they have associated comorbidities such as diabetes and are at increased risk of exposure to pathogens due to frequent hospital visits. The antibiogram of these isolates should be periodically monitored and the empirical treatment protocols updated regularly. Every center should study the antimicrobial resistance patterns prevalent in their ICU and enforce infection control practices.

Limitation(s)

This study was a single centre experience. Extrapolation of the results to the entire population may be questionable.

Conclusion(s)

It is clear from the previous and present studies that the resistance pattern of organisms causing VAP has been changing along with time. It varies between geographical areas and also between the study population. CKD population is at increased risk of infection. Off late, there has been an emergence of multidrug resistant strains due to which the treatment of VAP in CKD has become a major challenge. There is an increase in Extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), Metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) and AmpC production by Gram-negative Bacteria (GNB) in CKD population. There has been a trend towards an increase in VAP due to preexisting comorbidities in CKD patients and prolonged intubation. Hence, the antibiotic policy needs regular updating for CKD patients. The need of the hour is to prevent VAP in CKD population caused by multidrug resistant strains by formulating appropriate empirical antibiotic policy and also hospital infection control practices.

Chi square test p-value=0.793Chi square test p-value=0.123COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseETA: Entotracheal aspirate

References

[1]Nugent RA, Fathima SF, Feigl AB, Chyung D, The burden of chronic kidney disease on developing nations: A 21st century challenge in global health Nephron Clin Pract 2011 118(3):c269-77.10.1159/00032138221212690  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[2]Hsiao CY, Lin HL, Lin YK, Chen CW, Cheng YC, Lee WC, Urinary tract infection in patients with chronic kidney disease Turk J Med Sci 2014 44(1):145-49.10.3906/sag-1303-5125558575  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[3]Gilbert DN, Urinary tract infections in patients with chronic renal insufficiency Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006 1(2):327-31.10.2215/CJN.0193110517699224  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[4]Wenzel RP, Edmond MB, The impact of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections Emerg Infect Dis 2001 7(2):174-77.10.3201/eid0702.01020311294700  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[5]Vincent JL, Nosocomial infections in adult intensive-care units Lancet 2003 361(9374):2068-77.10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13644-6  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[6]Höffken G, Niederman MS, Nosocomial pneumonia: The importance of a d-escalating strategy for antibiotic treatment of pneumonia in the ICU Chest 2002 122(6):2183-96.10.1378/chest.122.6.218312475862  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[7]Appelgren P, Hellström I, Weitzberg E, Söderlund V, Bindslev L, Ransjö U, Risk factors for nosocomial intensive care infection: A long-term prospective analysis Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001 45(6):710-19.10.1034/j.1399-6576.2001.045006710.x11421829  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[8]Artigas AT, Dronda SB, Vallés EC, Marco JM, Villuendas Usón MC, Figueras P, Risk factors for nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill trauma patients Crit Care Med 2001 29(2):304-09.10.1097/00003246-200102000-0001511246310  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[9]Craven DE, Kunches LM, Kilinsky V, Lichtenberg DA, Make BJ, McCabe WR, Risk factors for pneumonia and fatality in patients receiving continuous mechanical ventilation Am Rev Respir Dis 1986 133(5):792-96.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Dennesen P, Van der Ven A, Vlasveld M, Lokker L, Ramsay G, Kessels A, Inadequate salivary flow and poor oral mucosal status in intubated intensive care unit patients Crit Care Med 2003 31(3):781-86.10.1097/01.CCM.0000053646.04085.2912626984  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[11]Adair CG, Gorman SP, Feron BM, Byers LM, Jones DS, Goldsmith CE, Implications of endotracheal tube biofilm for ventilator-associated pneumonia Intensive Care Med 1999 25:1072-76.10.1007/s00134005101410551961  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[12]Díaz E, Planas K, Rello J, Infection associated with the use of assisted-ventilation devices Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2008 26(7):465-70.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Chastre J, Fagon JY, Ventilator-associated pneumonia Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002 165(7):867-903.10.1164/ajrccm.165.7.210507811934711  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[14]Fortaleza CMCB, Abati PAM, Batista MR, Dias A, Risk factors for hospital-acquired pneumonia in nonventilated adults Braz J Infect Dis 2009 13(4):284-88.10.1590/S1413-8670200900040000920231992  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[15]Chevret S, Hemmer M, Carlet J, Langer M, Incidence and risk factors of pneumonia acquired in intensive care units. Results from a multicenter prospective study on 996 patients. European Cooperative Group on Nosocomial Pneumonia Intensive Care Med 1993 19(5):256-64.10.1007/BF016905458408934  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[16]Haley RW, Hooton TM, Culver DH, Stanley RC, Emori TG, Hardison CD, Nosocomial infections in U.S.hospitals, 1975-1976: Estimated frequency by selected characteristics of patients Am J Med 1981 70(4):947-59.10.1016/0002-9343(81)90561-1  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[17]Dey A, Bairy I, Incidence of multidrug-resistant organisms causing ventilator-associated pneumonia in a tertiary care hospital: A nine months’ prospective study Ann Thorac Med 2007 2(2):52-57.10.4103/1817-1737.3223019727346  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[18]Fagon JY, Chastre J, Hance AJ, Montravers P, Novara A, Gibert C, Nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients: A cohort study evaluating attributable mortality and hospital stay Am J Med 1993 94(3):281-88.10.1016/0002-9343(93)90060-3  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[19]Dorca J, Manresa F, Esteban L, Efficacy, safety, and therapeutic relevance of transthoracic aspiration with ultrathin needle in nonventilated nosocomial pneumonia Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995 151(5):1491-96.10.1164/ajrccm.151.5.77356057735605  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[20]Bartlett JG, Ryan KJ, Smith TF, Laboratory Diagnosis of Lower Respiratory Tract Infection In: Washington JA ed, Cumitech 7A 1987 Washington DCAmerican Society for Microbiology:1-18.  [Google Scholar]

[21]Henry D Isenberg, Essential procedures for Clinical Microbiology. 1325 Masachusetts Avenue, N.W. 1998 Washington, DCAmerican Society of Microbiology  [Google Scholar]

[22]Fujitani S, Yu VL, Quantitative cultures for diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia: A critique Clin Infect Dis 2006 43(Suppl 2):S106-13.10.1086/50448816894512  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[23]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2012. National Healthcare Safety Network manual (NHSN). Healthcare personnel safety component protocol. Device-associated module: Ventilator-associated event protocol. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta  [Google Scholar]

[24]Wayne PA, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 29th informational supplement 2019 M100-S16  [Google Scholar]

[25]Kumarasamy KK, Toleman MA, Walsh TR, Bagaria J, Butt F, Balakrishnan R, Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: A molecular, biological, and epidemiological study Lancet Infect Dis 2010 10(9):597-602.10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70143-2  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[26]Pattanayak C, Patanaik SK, Datta PP, Panda P, A study on antibiotic sensitivity pattern of bacterial isolates in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital in Eastern India Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol 2013 2(2):153-59.10.5455/2319-2003.ijbcp20130307  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[27]Rajasekhar T, Anuradha K, Suhasini T, Lakshmi V, The role of quantitative cultures of non-bronchoscopic samples in ventilator associated pneumonia Indian J Med Microbiol 2006 24(2):107-13.10.4103/0255-0857.2522616687860  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[28]Simoni P, Wiatrak BJ, Microbiology of stents in laryngotracheal reconstruction Laryngoscope 2004 114(2):364-67.10.1097/00005537-200402000-0003414755219  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[29]Cendrero JAC, Solé-Violán J, Benítez AB, Catalán JN, Fernández JA, Santana PS, Role of different routes of tracheal colonization in the development of pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation Chest 1999 116(2):462-70.10.1378/chest.116.2.46210453877  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[30]Onçağ O, Cökmez B, Aydemir S, Balcioğlu T, Investigation of bacteremia following nasotracheal intubation Paediatr Anaesth 2005 15(3):194-98.10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01503.x15725315  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[31]Gupta P, Gupta S, Singh JB, Bacteriological profile and the antibiotic susceptibility pattern of endotracheal secretions in ICU of a tertiary care hospital Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 2018 7(18):2210-13.10.14260/jemds/2018/497  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[32]Chandra D, Laghawe A, Sadawarte K, Prabhu T, Microbiological profile and antimicrobial sensitivity pattern of endotracheal tube aspirates of patients in ICU of a tertiary care hospital in Bhopal, India Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2017 6(3):891-95.10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.104  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[33]Ebenezer R, Princess I, Vadala R, Kumar S, Ramakrishnan N, Krishnan G, Microbiological profile of infections in a tertiary care burns unit Indian J Crit Care Med 2019 23(9):405-10.10.5005/jp-journals-10071-2323431645825  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[34]Caskurlu H, Davarci I, Kocoglu ME, Cag Y, Examination of blood and tracheal aspirate culture results in intensive care patients: 5-year analysis Medeni Med J 2020 35(2):128-35.10.5222/MMJ.2020.8913832733762  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[35]Swati A, Yamini K, Rajkumar RV, Microbiological spectrum and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of various isolates from endotracheal tube aspirates in a tertiary care hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana Indian Journal of Microbiology Research 2018 5(2):202-07.10.18231/2394-5478.2018.0043  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[36]Brooks SE, Walczak MA, Rizwanullah H, Are we doing enough to contain Acinetobacter infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000 21(5):30410.1086/50322410823558  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[37]Malik M, Malik MI, Sajjad A, Pattern of bacterial pathogens isolated from endotracheal secretions in Intensive care unit (ICU) patients of a tertiary care hospital of Lahore Pak J Pathol 2018 29(2):46-48.  [Google Scholar]

[38]Anusha N, Madhu KP, Arun BJ, Vidyasagar B, Microbiological profile and sensitivity pattern of endotracheal secretions in mechanically ventilated patients in ICU J Evid Based Healthc 2014 1(9):1177-84.10.18410/jebmh/2014/172  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[39]Ahmad H, Sadiq A, Bhatti HW, Bhatti AA, Tameez-Ud-Din A, Ibrahim A, Bacteriological profile and antibiogram of cultures isolated from tracheal secretions Cureus 2019 11(6):e496510.7759/cureus.4965  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]

[40]Kumari HV, Nagarathna S, Chandramuki A, Antimicrobial resistance pattern among aerobic gram-negative bacilli of lower respiratory tract specimens of intensive care unit patients in a neurocentre Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2007 49(1):19-22.  [Google Scholar]

[41]Golden S, Shehab ZM, Bjelland JC, Ryan KJ, Ray CG, Microbiology of endotracheal aspirates in intubated pediatric intensive care unit patients: Correlations with radiographic findings Pediatr Infect Dis 1987 6(7):665-69.10.1097/00006454-198707000-000092441347  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[42]Harris H, Wirtschafter DD, Cassady G, Endotracheal intubation and its relationship to bacterial colonization and systemic infection of newborn infants Pediatrics 1976 58(6):816-23.  [Google Scholar]