Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 7388

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : December | Volume : 17 | Issue : 12 | Page : DC21 - DC25 Full Version

Detection of Biofilm Formation among Drug-resistant Acinetobacter spp. Isolated from ICUs at a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: December 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/66324.18838
Shweta R Sharma, Amit Mishra, Imran Ahamad, Sudhir Singh

1. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Professor, Department of Microbiology, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Imran Ahamad,
Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad-244001, Uttar Pradesh, India.
E-mail: dr.imranahamad786@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Acinetobacter spp. has emerged as an important hospital-acquired and opportunistic agent due to its survival capability in adverse conditions, saprophytic presence, and increasing resistance to antimicrobials. The irrational use of antibiotics, along with biofilm formation, plays an important role in producing Extensively Drug-resistant (XDR) and Multidrug- Resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter species, especially Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (Acb complex), in the hospital environment, contributing to morbidity and mortality.

Aim: To detect biofilm production among Acinetobacter species isolated from various clinical samples received from Intensive Care Units (ICUs) as well as their antibiotic sensitivity pattern.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Microbiology Department at Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India from January 2022 to April 2023. Patients of all age groups and both genders were included in the study after obtaining informed consent. Clinical specimens, including endotracheal secretions, endotracheal tips, pus, urine, sputum, tissue, and other body fluids, were collected from ICUs where Acinetobacter spp. was detected. A total of 223 cases were included. The specimens were collected using clean, leak-proof, sterile containers with proper aseptic precautions. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed according to the guidelines set by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in 2022 and identifies MDR and XDR strains. The biofilm production of isolates was determined using a quantitative adherence assay. The data generated was entered into Microsoft excel, and statistical analysis was conducted using International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software version 28.0. The results were then presented as descriptive statistics.

Results: Among the 223 Acinetobacter spp. isolates, 159 (71.3%) were identified as Acb complex (Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex), followed by A.lwofi with 39 (17.5%) isolates and A. haemolyticus with 16 (7.2%) isolates. Acinetobacter showed resistance, in descending order of frequency, to amoxicillin+clavulanic acid (211 isolates, 94.6%), ciprofloxacin (211 isolates, 94.6%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (208 isolates, 93.3%), cefotaxime (198 isolates, 88.8%), cefepime (187 isolates, 83.8%), gentamycin (178 isolates, 79.8%), amikacin (152 isolates, 68.2%), piperacillin-tazobactam (68 isolates, 30.5%), imipenem (72 isolates, 32.3%), meropenem (71 isolates, 31.8%), polymyxin B (12 isolates, 5.4%), and colistin (2 isolates, 0.9%). The maximum antibiotic resistance was observed in Acb complex, with 208 (93.3%) strains being MDR producers and 32 (14.3%) strains being XDR producers. Biofilm production was observed in 214 isolates (95.9%), with 127 (56.9%) exhibiting strong biofilm production 63 (28.2%) showing moderate biofilm production, and 24 (10.8%) showing weak biofilm production. All MDR strains were found to produce biofilm, and out of those, 127 (61.1%) exhibited strong biofilm production. Among the XDR strains, all 32 (100%) were found to produce strong biofilm.

Conclusion: In conclusion, Acinetobacter spp. has a high propensity for developing MDR, and the formation of biofilms further aids the organism in surviving under strenuous conditions, making it difficult to treat. Therefore, regular surveillance of Hospital-acquired Infections (HAI), the prevention of misuse and overuse of antibiotics, prescribing antibiotics based on antibiogram patterns, formulating antibiotic policies, and implementing bundle care approaches for the prevention of HAI are crucial in preventing antibiotic resistance.

Keywords

Antibiotic resistance, Extensively drug-resistant, Intensive care unit, Multidrug-resistant

Acinetobacter spp. is Gram-negative coccobacilli, non fermenters present throughout healthcare settings. They are opportunistic healthcare-associated pathogens, causing a wide range of infections such as Ventilator-associated Pneumonia (VAP), wound infections, Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs), peritonitis, bacteremia, and infections associated with indwelling devices, particularly in ICUs (1),(2). Acinetobacter spp. has emerged as a significant hospital-acquired and opportunistic agent due to its ability to survive in adverse conditions, its saprophytic presence, and its increasing resistance to antimicrobials (3). Among the isolated species, Acinetobacter baumannii, considered a “Red alert pathogen,” is the most common and exhibits a high level of resistance to major antibiotics. MDR in Acinetobacter spp. is attributed to carbapenemase production and biofilm formation (4),(5). The high antibiotic resistance observed may be linked to the overexpression of efflux pumps, reduced permeability, resistance islands containing gene clusters encoding for antibiotics, and carbapenemase production especially Carbapenem-hydrolysing class D β-Lactamases (CHDLs) (6).

Biofilm is a polymeric matrix produced by a structured community of microorganisms that adheres to inert or living surfaces (7),(8). Biofilm enables organisms to spread in hospital settings by attaching to various surfaces, such as central and peripheral line catheters, Central Nervous System (CNS) shunts, or Foley catheters (9). It plays a key role in the transfer of antibiotic resistance via plasmids, transposons/integrons, and intercellular communication commonly known as quorum sensing (10). Biofilm formation depends on various factors, including Biofilm-associated protein (Bap), Outer membrane protein A (OmpA), CsuA/BABCDE chaperone-usher pili assembly, among others (11). Studies suggest that biofilm-producing strains of Acinetobacter spp. exhibit significantly higher antimicrobial resistance compared to non biofilm producers (10). Biofilm affects the efficacy of antimicrobial agents by reducing their penetration capability and trapping them within the exopolysaccharide matrix, acting as a protective mechanism that enables survival in different environmental conditions (10). Therefore, the irrational use of antibiotics coupled with biofilm formation plays a significant role in the emergence of XDR and MDR A. baumannii in the hospital environment, contributing to morbidity, mortality, and the emergence of new antibiotic resistance phenotypes (12),(13). Pulsed-field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) and Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST) are useful in detecting the genotypic relationships among A.baumannii strains in hospital settings (14).

Emphasising the importance of biofilm production and its role in MDR organisms, as well as evaluating biofilm production among drug-resistant isolates, is of paramount importance for effectively managing Acinetobacter species in HAIs. However, studies related to this topic are scarce, especially in this part of Northern India. The hypothesis of the present study was that there is a direct association between biofilm production in clinical isolates and drug resistance.

The present study aimed to detect and compare biofilm production among drug-resistant Acinetobacter species isolated from various clinical samples obtained from ICUs. The primary objective of the study was to determine the antibiotic sensitivity pattern of these isolates, while the secondary objective was to detect the production of biofilms among drug-resistant strains, such as MDR and XDR.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Microbiology Department at Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India from January 2022 to April 2023. The study received approval from the central research committee, and ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Committee (TMMC&RC/IEC/20-21/119).

Inclusion criteria: Patients of all age groups and both genders were included in the study after obtaining informed consent. All clinical specimens, including endotracheal secretions, endotracheal tips, pus, urine, sputum, tissue, and other body fluids, collected in clean, leak-proof, sterile containers with proper aseptic precautions received from ICU where Acinetobacter spp was detected, were included in the present study. Blood samples were collected in automated BactAlert bottles.

Exclusion criteria: Isolates other than Acinetobacter spp. and growth occurring in a mixture of organisms were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: The required sample size (N) was determined using the formula N=Z2 P(1-P)/d2, where ‘CI’ is the confidence interval (95%), d is the margin of error (5%), ‘P’ is the prevalence (9.3%) (15) and ‘Z’ is 1.96 for a 95% CI. The calculated minimum sample size was 153.49, rounded up to 154. However, the authors included 223 isolates as we received more isolates during the study period.

Study Procedure

A 5% defibrinated sheep blood agar and MacConkey’s agar plates were used to inoculate the specimens, which were then incubated aerobically at 35°C for 24 hours. Isolate identification was based on standard laboratory techniques, and different Acinetobacter spp. were identified using the automated Vitek 2 Compact system. Only Acinetobacter spp. was further processed for antibiotic sensitivity testing and biofilm formation. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using the modified Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method according to CLSI standards, 2022 (16). MDR isolates were defined as those resistant to at least one agent in ≥3 classes of the tested antimicrobials, while XDR strains were resistant to at least one agent in all classes but two or fewer antimicrobial categories (17).

Biofilm production of the isolates was detected using a quantitative adherence assay. In Trypticase Soy Broth (TSB), isolates were inoculated and incubated at 37°C for 16-24 hours. In 96-well microtiter plates, 2 μL of the suspension was mixed with 198 μL of TSB and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. After washing thrice with 200 μL of Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS), the plates were stained with 50 μL of 0.1% crystal violet. After another three washes with 200 μL of distilled water, 200 μL of 5% isopropanol was added. The Optical Density (OD) at 570 nm was determined using a microtitre plate reader. Positive and negative controls, ATCC-27853 P.aeruginosa and ATCC-25923 S.aureus, respectively, were included. All isolates along with positive and negative control were tested in triplicate and the average OD was determined. By definition, OD cut-off (ODc) was determined by taking an average OD of negative control+(3×SD of negative control). Biofilm production was interpretated as non biofilm producer: OD≤ODc, Weak biofilm producer: ODc < OD ≤ 2×ODc, medium biofilm producer: 2×ODc< OD ≤4×ODc and strong biofilm producer: 4×ODc < OD (18).

Statistical Analysis

The data generated was entered into Microsoft excel, and statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS statistical software version 28.0. Afterwards, the data was presented as descriptive statistics.

Results

During the study period, a total of 223 Acinetobacter spp. were identified from various clinical samples collected. Among them, 139 (62.3%) were males and 84 (37.6%) were females, resulting in a ratio of 2:1. The most commonly affected age group was 51-60 years, with 77 cases (34.5%), followed by the 61-70 years group with 54 cases (24.2%), as illustrated in (Table/Fig 1).

Among the 223 clinical isolates, 159 (71.3%) were identified as Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (Acb complex), which was the predominant species. This was followed by 39 isolates (17.5%) of A.lwofi, 16 (7.2%) of A.haemolyticus, 6 (2.7%) of A.junii, and 3 (1.3%) of A.radioresistens, as displayed in (Table/Fig 2).

In the present study, Acinetobacter spp. was most commonly isolated from Endotracheal (ET) secretion and ET tube samples, accounting for 93 cases (41.7%). Sputum samples accounted for 36 cases (16.1%), while blood and central line samples accounted for 32 cases (14.3%). Urine samples accounted for 30 cases (13.4%), and other sample types were also included, as depicted in (Table/Fig 2).

Maximum antibiotic resistance was found in the Acb complex, followed by A.lwoffi and A. haemolyticus, as shown in (Table/Fig 3). In the present study, 208 (93.3%) strains were MDR, and 32 (14.3%) strains were XDR, as indicated in (Table/Fig 3). Among the 223 Acinetobacter spp., 159 (71.3%) were Acb complex (Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex), followed by A.lwofi with 39 (17.5%) strains and A.haemolyticus with 16 (7.2%) strains. Acinetobacter demonstrated resistance, in descending order of frequency, to the following antibiotics: amoxicillin+clavulanic acid with 211 (94.6%), ciprofloxacin with 211 (94.6%), trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole with 208 (93.3%), cefotaxime with 198 (88.8%), cefepime with 187 (83.8%), gentamycin with 178 (79.8%), amikacin with 152 (68.2%), piperacillin-tazobactam with 68 (30.5%), imipenem with 72 (32.3%), meropenem with 71 (31.8%), polymyxin B with 12 (5.4%), and colistin with 2 (0.9%). Additionally, 208 (93.3%) strains were MDR producers, and 32 (14.3%) strains were XDR producers.

Biofilm production was observed in 214 isolates (95.9%). Among them, strong biofilm was detected in 127 strains (56.9%), while moderate and weak biofilm production were seen in 63 (28.2%) and 24 (10.8%) strains, respectively. It was found that all MDR strains were capable of producing biofilm, with 127 (61.1%) of them exhibiting strong biofilm production. Moderate and weak biofilm production were observed in 62 (29.8%) and 19 (9.1%) MDR strains, respectively. In contrast, among non MDR strains, 9 (60%) did not produce biofilm, while 5 (33.3%) and 1 (6.7%) strains showed weak and moderate biofilm production, respectively. None of the non-MDR strains were found to produce strong biofilm (Table/Fig 4). Interestingly, all XDR strains were found to produce strong biofilm. Among non XDR strains, 95 (49.7%), 63 (32.9%), 24 (12.6%), and 9 (4.7%) displayed strong, moderate, weak, and no biofilm production, respectively (Table/Fig 4).

Discussion

Acinetobacter is a notorious healthcare-associated pathogen, especially in ICUs, due to the usage of invasive devices and prolonged stays. Biofilm formation is considered an important virulence factor for its survival and the development of MDR strains. In the present study, the predominant species was the Acb complex (71.3%), followed by A. lwofi (17.5%) and A. haemolyticus (7.2%). This finding is comparable to studies conducted by Kumari M et al., where out of a total of 324 isolates, 167 (51.5%) were Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (Acb complex), followed by 83 (25.6%) A. lwoffii, 38 (11.7%) A.haemolyticus, 30 (9.3%) A.radioresistens, and 6 (1.9%) A.junii (19). Gupta N et al., also reported similar results, with Acb complex accounting for 80 (72%) of total Acinetobacter isolates, and non Acb complex species {Acinetobacter lwoffii 16 (14%), Acinetobacter haemolyticus 13 (12%), Acinetobacter junii 1 (1%), Acinetobacter radioresistans 1 (1%)} comprising the remaining isolates (20). This observation suggests that the Acb complex has a better survival mechanism even under stringent conditions.

In the present study, only ICU patients were considered, as they require prolonged hospitalisation, invasive devices, and treatment with multiple antibiotics, thereby providing a favourable environment for the colonisation and survival of Acinetobacter in a hospital set-up. The development of antibiotic resistance is associated with high morbidity and mortality in hospitalised patients, particularly in ICU settings (21),(22). The most common isolates in present study were obtained from ET secretion and ET tubes (41.7%), followed by sputum (16.1%), blood and central line (14.3%), and urine (13.4%). These findings are in accordance with a study by Bala M et al., where the maximum isolation was from endotracheal aspirate (42%), followed by sputum (29%), pus (16%), blood and other sterile body fluids (6%), urine (4%), and bronchoalveolar lavage (3%) (23). ET tubes, central lines, and urinary catheters are more prone to biofilm production, which protects them from antimicrobials and host defense mechanisms (24).

The high level of resistance to common antibiotics is due to Acinetobacter’s ability to acquire resistance easily, and biofilm formation supports the spread of resistance, making it a difficult-to-treat pathogen in the current period. In the late 1990s, carbapenems were the treatment of choice for Acinetobacter infection, but now carbapenem resistance is developing worldwide, causing serious concern (25). Acinetobacter exhibited resistance, in descending order of frequency, to amoxicillin+clavulanic acid (94.6%), ciprofloxacin (94.6%), trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole (93.3%), cefotaxime (88.8%), cefepime (83.8%), gentamycin (79.8%), amikacin (68.2%), and piperacillin-tazobactam (30.5%). In the present study, the resistance to imipenem and meropenem was 32.3% and 31.8%, respectively. However, the prevalence of resistance to polymyxin B and colistin was 5.4% and 0.9%, respectively, making it the only antibiotic useful in the treatment of these resistant strains. In the present study, 93.3% and 14.3% of the strains were identified as MDR and XDR, respectively. The resistance pattern observed was similar to studies conducted by Shrestha M and Khanal B, where resistance patterns to various drugs included meropenem (19%), piperacillin (96%), piperacillin-tazobactam (43%), amikacin (51%), ceftazidime (84%), ceftriaxone (66%), co-trimoxazole (58%), gentamycin (57%), ciprofloxacin (55%), and tetracycline (53%). Additionally, eleven isolates of Acinetobacter were resistant to meropenem (22). Another study by Monfared AM et al., showed that resistance to many antibiotics was over 90%, with sensitivity limited to colistin. Out of 118 isolates, nine were resistant to colistin (26).

Biofilm production is responsible for causing delayed drug diffusion through the biofilm matrix, altered growth rate of biofilm organisms, and other physiological changes due to the biofilm mode of growth (27). In the present study, biofilm production was observed in 95.9% of isolates. Strong biofilm was detected in 56.9% of the isolates, while moderate and weak biofilm production was observed in 28.2% and 10.8% of isolates, respectively. These findings differ from another study where biofilm formation was reported in 73.7% of isolates (28). The difference could be attributed to the fact that the present study focused on samples obtained specifically from ICUs where device usage is more common and biofilm formation is frequently observed.

All MDR strains were found to be producing biofilm, with 61.1% of them exhibiting strong biofilm production. Similarly, all XDR strains were found to produce strong biofilm. These results are consistent with another study from Tehran, where 92% of biofilm-forming strains were reported to be MDR and 86% were XDR (28). It is crucial to develop new strategies that focus on inhibiting biofilm formation and eradicating preformed biofilms in order to combat biofilm-associated infections. Preventive strategies for biofilm production can include the use of: a) antibacterial polymers like silver nanoparticles or hydrogel matrices on medical devices, as well as; b) surface coatings with antibiofilm agents to inhibit biofilm formation by A. baumannii on medically relevant surfaces. Strategies for the eradication or dispersal of preformed biofilms in chronic infections can involve the; c) degradation of the biofilm matrix using enzymes or natural/synthetic compounds; d) targeting the quorum sensing mechanism of A.baumannii through Quorum Sensing (QS) inhibition or quorum quenching, and utilising; e) emerging therapeutic strategies such as phage therapy, photodynamic therapy, and nanoparticle-based therapy (29). Hence, the findings of the present study contribute to the further management of these drug-resistant strains. Additionally, preventing biofilm formation can be achieved by implementing appropriate infection control measures such as environmental surveillance and cleaning, contact precautions, restricted use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, and adherence to proper guidelines for antibiotic usage.

Limitation(s)

In the present study, only Acinetobacter spp. was included. However, it is important to note that biofilm formation is a common virulence mechanism for other bacterial agents as well. Additionally, biofilm formation is more commonly observed in infections associated with invasive devices. Therefore, further studies are needed to better understand the process of biofilm formation in bacterial infections.

Conclusion

Acinetobacter spp. have a high propensity for developing MDR, and biofilm formation further aids the organism in surviving in strenuous conditions, making it even more difficult to treat. The current treatment strategy for biofilm-associated infections depends on whether contaminated medical implants are involved or if the bacteria have directly colonised host tissues. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices often require the removal of the implant for successful treatment outcomes. In other cases where bacteria directly colonise host tissues are chronic infections. In such cases, reducing the biofilm through antibiotic treatment is currently the only feasible option. Therefore, regular surveillance of HAI, early removal of medical devices, avoiding misuse and overuse of antibiotics, prescribing antibiotics based on antibiogram patterns, formulating antibiotic policies, and implementing a bundle care approach to prevent HAIs are some of the key measures for preventing antibiotic resistance.

References

1.
Bazmara H, Rasooli I, Jahangiri A, Sefid F, Astaneh SDA, Payandeh Z. Antigenic properties of iron regulated proteins in Acinetobacter baumannii: An in-silico approach. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2019;25(1):205-13. [crossref]
2.
Salmani A, Mohsenzadeh M, Pirouzi A, Khaledi A. A comprehensive meta-analysis of antibiotic resistance pattern among biofilm production strains of Acinetobacter baumannii recovered from clinical specimens of patients. Gene Reports. 2020;19:100664. [crossref]
3.
Longo F, Vuotto C, Donelli G. Biofilm formation in Acinetobacter baumannii. New Microbiol. 2014;37(2):119-27.
4.
Al-Shamiri MM, Zhang S, Mi P, Liu Y, Xun M, Yang E, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of Acinetobacter baumannii enrolled in the relationship among antibiotic resistance, biofilm formation and motility. Microbial Pathog. 2021;155:104922. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Gedefie A, Demsis W, Ashagrie M, Kassa Y, Tesfaye M, Tilahun M, et al. Acinetobacter baumannii biofilm formation and its role in disease pathogenesis: A review. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:3711-19. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Kyriakidis I, Vasileiou E, Pana ZD, Tragiannidis A. Acinetobacter baumannii Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms. Pathogens. 2021;10(3):373. Doi: 10.3390/pathogens10030373. PMID: 33808905; PMCID: PMC8003822. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Kemung HM, Tan LTH, Khaw KY, Ong YS, Chan CK, Sern Low DY, et al. An optimized anti-adherence and anti-biofilm assay: Case study of zinc oxide nanoparticles versus MRSA biofilm. Prog Microbes Mol Biol. 2020;3(1):a0000091. [crossref]
8.
Pusparajah P, Letchumanan V, Law JWF, Mutalib NS, Ong YS, Goh B, et al. Streptomyces sp.-A treasure trove of weapons to combat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm associated with biomedical devices. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(17):9360. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Smani Y, McConnell MJ, Pachón J. Role of fibronectin in the adhesion of Acinetobacter baumannii to host cells. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e33073. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Gurung J, Khyriem AB, Banik A, Lyngdoh WV, Choudhury B, Bhattacharyya P. 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):214-18. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Gaddy JA, Actis LA. Regulation of Acinetobacter baumannii biofilm formation. Future Microbiol. 2009;4(3):273-78. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Ramezanalizadeh F, Owlia P, Rasooli I. Type I pili, CsuA/B and FimA induce a protective immune response against Acinetobacter baumannii. Vaccine. 2020;38(34):5436-46. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Ashuthosh KC, Hegde A, Rao P, Manipura R. Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-The Modern Menace: A retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in Mangalore. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:2181-87.[crossref][PubMed]
14.
Sheikh AF, Savari M, Abbasi Montazeri E, Khoshnood S. Genotyping and molecular characterization of clinical Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from a single hospital in Southwestern Iran. Pathog Glob Health. 2020;114(5):251-61. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Sharma M, Sapkota J, Jha B, Mishra B, Bhatt CP. Biofilm formation and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producer among acinetobacter species isolated in a tertiary care hospital: A descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2019;57(220):424-28. Doi: 10.31729/jnma.4726. PMID: 32335654; PMCID: PMC7580415. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, “Performance standard for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; thirty third edition,” Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, USA, CLSI Document M100-S33, 2022.
17.
Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):268-81. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Stepanovic S, Vukovic D, Dakic I, Di Bonaventura G, Djukic S, Cirkovic I, et al. Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: Overview of testing conditions and practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci. J Microbiol Methods. 2000;40(2):175-79.
19.
Kumari M, Bhattarai NR, Rai K, Pandit TK, Khanal B. Multidrug-resistant acinetobacter: Detection of ESBL, MBL, blaNDM-1 genotype, and biofilm formation at a tertiary care hospital in eastern Nepal. Hindawi International Journal of Microbiology. 2022;2022:8168000. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Gupta N, Gandham N, Jadhav S, Mishra RN. Isolation and identification of Acinetobacter species with special reference to antibiotic resistance. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2015;6(1):159-62. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Yadav SK, Bhujel R, Hamal P, Mishra SK, Sharma S, Sherchand JB. Burden of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection in hospitalised patients in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:725-32. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Shrestha M, Khanal B. Acinetobacter species: Phenotypic characterization and antimicrobial resistance. Journal of Nobel Medical College. 2013;2(1):43-48. [crossref]
23.
Bala M, Gupte S, Aggarwal P, Kaur M, Manhas A. Biofilm producing multidrug resistant Acinetobacter species from a tertiary care hospital: A therapeutic challenge. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4(7):3024-26. [crossref]
24.
Gunardi WD, Karuniawati A, Umbas R, Bardosono S, Lydia A, Soebandrio A, et al. Biofilm-producing bacteria and risk factors (gender and duration of catheterization) characterized as catheter-associated biofilm formation. International Journal of Microbiology. 2021;2021:8869275. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Meletis G. Carbapenem resistance: Overview of the problem and future perspectives. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2016;3(1):15-21. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Monfared AM, Rezaei A, Poursina F, Faghri J. Detection of genes involved in biofilm formation in MDR and XDR Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from human clinical specimens in Isfahan, Iran. Arch Clin Infect Dis. 2019;14(2):e85766.
27.
Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: Survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15:167-93. Doi: 10.1128/ CMR.15.2.167-193. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Babapour E, Haddadi A, Mirnejad R, Angaji S, Amirmozafari N. Biofilm formation in clinical isolates of nosocomial Acinetobacter baumannii and its relationship with multidrug resistance. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2016;6(6):528-33. [crossref]
29.
Upmanyu K, Haq QMR, Singh R. Factors mediating Acinetobacter baumannii biofilm formation: Opportunities for developing therapeutics. Current Research in Microbial Sciences. 2022;3:100131.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/66324.18838

Date of Submission: Jul 01, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Sep 02, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Nov 03, 2023
Date of Publishing: Dec 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 06, 2023
• Manual Googling: Oct 13, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Nov 01, 2023 (15%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com