Get Permission Sunil, Kumar, Somu L, and Sridharan: Evaluation of microbial infections of ear and their susceptibility pattern in a tertiary care hospital


Background

Ear infections are common worldwide. Nearly 0.065 to 0.33 billion people suffer from ear infections leading to loss of hearing in about 60% of them.1 Because of its close proximity of the middle ear to the brain, infections of them if not treated appropriately and promptly can lead to intracranial infections and complications with high morbidity and mortality. 2 The majority of these infections are bacterial in origin with increasing pyogenicity.3 The imperceptive, inaccurate, inappropriate use of antibiotics has caused the advent of multiple resistant strains of bacteria which is now a worldwide public health threat.4, 5 Some factors such as low socio-economic status, lack of hygiene, insufficient health care, overcrowding and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections plays a major role for ear infections in low and middle-income countries. 6, 7 Hence, the importance of knowledge of the local pattern of infective organisms, their susceptibility pattern and their extent of antibiotic resistance is essential in the developing countries for proper management of patients with ear infections.8 However, antibiotic resistance is a concerning global issue listed among the major threats to public health by the World Health Organization. 9

Keeping in view the widespread use of antibiotics in the community and the high rate of antibiotic resistance, this study was undertaken to unravel the void left in otological microbiome.

Aims and Objectives

  1. To study the microbiological profile of ear infections

  2. To study the antibiotic susceptibility pattern of the bacterial isolates.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis of culture and antibiotic susceptibility reports of ear samples representing middle ear infections sent from the Otorhinolaryngology department during the period 1st June to 30th September 2019 were retrieved using HIS (Hospital information software) at a tertiary care center in South India.

Isolation and identification of bacteria

The samples that were received at the Clinical Microbiology laboratory were subjected to Gram stain and then processed for the isolation of pathogens by inoculating into Blood agar, Chocolate agar and Mac-Conkey agar. The culture plates were incubated at 37°C and observed for the presence of growth at the end of 24 and 48hrs. Plates showing no growth at the end of 48 hours were reported as NO Growth. Those plates which showed growth were further processed for the identification of pathogens conventionally using appropriate biochemical reactions. Antibiotic susceptibility testing of the isolates were performed as per CLSI guidelines (2016 guidelines). The culture plates which grew mould and yeast were further subcultured into Sabouraud’s Dextrose Agar and identified at species level using appropriate techniques.

The test results archived from the HIS were tabulated to look for the microbiological profile and the susceptibility pattern of the pathogens.

Results

A total of 325 middle ear samples were analyzed during the study period out of which 23 of them showed no growth. Amongst the 302 samples, 325 pathogens were isolated in which 23 of them grew 2 pathogens. Out of the 325 pathogens that were analyzed, it was almost equally distributed between both genders. 50.63 % in men and 49.38% in women. (n=325) The predominant age group affected was the 30-45 years which was about 32.3% (n-325). The majority of the isolates were Gram negative bacilli 57 % (n-186), followed by Gram positive cocci 38 % (n- 122) and the remaining 5 % were fungi (n-17). (Figure 1) shows the breakdown of organisms isolated from various specimens in this study.

The Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Gram-negative bacilli in this study is shown in (Table 1). Multidrug resistance among GNB were seen in 17 isolates (9.1%), with the most common organism being Pseudomonas aeruginosa 12(6.4%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae 2 (1.07%), Proteus spp, 2(1.07%), Acinetobacter spp 1(0.5%).

The Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Gram-positive cocci in this study is shown in (Table 2). Methicillin resistance among Staphylococcal isolates was 22.6%(n=122) of which 10 were Staph aureus (11.12%; n=90) and the rest 16 were CONS (64%; n=25). Overall susceptibility percentage of the antibiotics towards the clinical isolates is shown in (Table 3).

Figure 1
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/095b8d5f-8c64-43a2-9b00-1e3aef6f27c4image1.png

Table 1

shows the Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Gram negative bacilli in this study

Antibiotics

Escherichia (n=6)%

Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=15)%

Acinetobacter (pp (n=4)%

Enterobacter spp (n=4)%

Proteus spp (n=15)%

Morganella spp (n=2)%

Providencia spp (n=1)%

Citrobacter spp(n=3) %

Pseudomonas spp (n=136)%

Ampicillin

3 (50%)

Not reported

Not reported

Cephalexin

3 (50%)

6 (40%)

Cefotaxime

4 (66.6%)

11 (73.3%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

11 (73.3%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (66.6%)

Not reported

Cefatazidime

4 (66.6%)

11 (73.3%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

11 (73.3%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (66.6%)

111 (81.6%)

Cefaperazone sulbactum

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

15 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

125 (91.9%)

Piperacillin tazobactum

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

15 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

125 (91.9%)

Ciprofloxacin

2 (33.3%)

11 (73.3%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

13 (86.6%)

1 (50%)

1 (100%)

2 (66.6%)

104 (76.4%)

Levofloxacin

4 (66.6%)

13 (86.6%)

4 (100%)

4 (100%)

14 (93.3%)

1 (50%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

112 (82.3%)

Amikacin

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

4 (100%)

4 (100%)

13 (86.6%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

114 (83.8%)

Tobramycin

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

4 (100%)

4 (100%)

13 (86.6%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

115 (84.5%)

Cefipime

6 (100%)

13 (86.6%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

14 (93.3%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

125 (91.9%)

Imipenam

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

15 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

136 (100%)

Meropenam

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

3 (75%)

4 (100%)

15 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

136 (100%)

Polymyxin B

6 (100%)

15 (100%)

4 (100%)

4 (100%)

Not reported

3 (100%)

136 (100%)

Table 2

shows the Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Gram positivecocci in this study

Antibiotics

Staphylococcus aureus (n=90)%

Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus (n=25)%

Streptococcus spp(n=7)%

Ampicillin

50 (55.5%)

9 (36%)

5 (71.4%)

Cephalexin

82(91.1%)

18 (72%)

5 (71.4%)

Cefotaxime

80 (88.8%)

19 (76%)

5 (71.4%)

Gentamycin

74 (82.2%)

22 (88%)

Not reported

Ciprofloxacin

53 (58.8%)

12 (48%)

7 (100%)

Erythromycin

53 (58.8%)

9 (36%)

7 (100%)

Clindamycin

79 (87.7%)

20 (80%)

7 (100%)

Vancomycin

90 (100%)

25(100%)

6 (85.7%)

Linezolid

90 (100%)

25 (100%)

6 (85.7%)

Table 3

shows the overall susceptibility percentage of the antibiotics towards the clinical isolates

Drugs

GPC%

GNB%

Combined%

Ampicillin

52.45% (n=122)

50% (n=6)

52.34%(n=128)

Cephalexin

86.06%(n=122)

42.85%(n=21)

79.72%(n=143)

Cefotaxim

85.24%(n=122)

78%(n=50)

83.13%(n=172)

Ceftazidime

Not reported

81.18%(n=186)

81.18%(n=186)

Cefaperazone sulbactum

93.54%(n=186)

93.54%(n=186)

Piperacillin tazobactum

93.54%(n=186)

93.54%(n=186)

Cefipime

91.93%(n=186)

91.93%(n=186)

Amikacin

87.09%(n=186)

87.09%(n=186)

Tobaramycin

87.63%(n=186)

87.63%(n=186)

Imipenem

99.46%(n=186)

99.46%(n=186)

Meropenem

99.46%(n=186)

99.46%(n=186)

Polymyxin B

100%(n=186)

100%(n=186)

Vancomycin

100%(n=122)

Not reported

100%(n=122)

Linezolid

100%(n=122)

100%(n=122)

Gentamycin

83.47%(n=115)

83.47%(n=115)

Erythromycin

56.55%(n=122)

56.55%(n=122)

Clindamycin

86.08%(n=115)

86.08%(n=115)

Table 4

shows the guidelines for the efficacious management of ear infections followed in our institution

Organisms

1st Line

2nd Line

Topical

Remarks if any

Gram positive organisms

Staphylococcus aureus & CONS

1st Preferences Amoxicillin/ Ampicillin+ cloxacillin Cephalexin Erythromycin Ciprofloxacin 2nd Preferences Amoxy-clauvulinic acid

1st Preferences Cefotaxime Gentamycin 2nd Preferences Vancomycin Linezolid Clindamycin

Ciprofloxacin Ofloxacin Gentamycin Mupirocin

If allergic to penicillin group other group of antibiotics like macrolides or Quinolones to be considered for the treatment

Streptococcus spp

1st Preferences Ampicillin Cephalexin Erythromycin Ciprofloxacin Azithromycin

1st Preferences Cefotaxime 2nd Preferences Vancomycin Linezolid

Ciprofloxacin Mupirocin

If allergic to penicillin group other group of antibiotics macrolides or Quinolones to be considered for the treatment

Gram Negative organism

Pseudomonas spp Klebsiella pneumoniae Proteus spp Acinetobacter spp Escherichia coli Enterobacter spp Morganella spp Providencia spp

Amoxy-clauvulinic acid (not for Non-fermenters) Ciprofloxacin/ Ofloxacin

1st Preferences Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefaperazone- sulbactum Piperacillin- tazobactum Amikacin 2nd Preferences Levofloxacin Cefipime Imipenam Meropenam Polymyxin B

Amikacin Tobaramycin Ciprofloxacin Oflaxacin

-Pseudomonas spp intrinsically resistant to Cefotaxime, - Proteus spp, Morganella spp & Providencia spp are intrinsically resistant to Polymyxin B

Discussion

In this study the prevalence of bacteria was 94.76 %. Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) were predominantly isolated from the discharging ears (57%) compared to Gram- positive bacteria (38%). This study revealed that gender does not have an influence on the chances of getting an infected middle ear. Similarly, most studies have reported that there isn’t any clear gender-based differences in the risk of acquiring ear infections.10, 11 The infections of the ear are common among all age groups12 so identifying the microbial etiology and antibiotic susceptibility appropriately will help in the management and prevention of antibiotic resistance. In our study the most common age group affected was 30-60 years of age which corresponds with other Indian studies as well. 13 Whereas in some studies it shows a predilection to young children and adolescents. 14, 15

The most commonly isolated pathogen in our study was Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It is highly virulent; even though it may be regarded as an opportunistic pathogen, it can infect immunocompetent persons affecting any type of tissue. 16 Our finding is consistent with studies done in Riyadh,17 UAE,18 Pakistan19 and Saudi Arabia. 20 Following Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the second most common organism isolated was Staphylococcus aureus. It is observed that both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms are responsible for middle ear infections. The results of this present work showed that P. aeruginosa was the most commonly isolated pathogen (41.8%) followed by S. aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus spp., respectively. Similar findings have been observed in Ireland,21 Pakistan, 22 Greece23 and other parts of the world which reported that P. aeruginosa and S. aureus are the most common organisms isolated from the cases of otitis media.

This study also showed that 17 swabs (5%) showed the presence of fungus (yeast/mould). The probable reasons for fungal ear infection include perennial warm, humid temperature and environmental pollution.24, 25, 26 The magnitude of fungal infections is lesser when compared to bacterial ear infections. There is a similar pattern of organisms isolated in the tropical countries such as Africa, Singapore, Nigeria, and Pakistan when compared to the studies in India. There would be variations in the microbial profile of the organisms isolated in different parts of the world. Still, Pseudomonas and Staphylococci cause the majority (65.91%) of middle ear infections in tropical countries. 27

Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed 76.4% sensitivity with ciprofloxacin, 81.6% with ceftazidime, 83.8% with amikacin, 91.9% sensitivity with piperacillin/tazobactam, and 100% sensitivity with Imipenem, Meropenem, Colistin, and Polymyxin B in our study. MDR strains accounted to 9.1% and is slowly on the rise. The higher rate of multidrug resistance may be due to the miss use of antibiotics. 28 These results were found to be in concordance with other Indian and world studies as well. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 14, 15, 28

Staphylococcus species were susceptible with ampicillin in 55.5% cases in our study. In study by Aslam et al33 resistance with ampicillin and amoxycillin was found to be 77.2%. Sensitivity with ciprofloxacin was 58.8% in our study. In some other studies29, 30, 34 the Staphylococcus species sensitivity with ciprofloxacin was higher (83.0%-95.0%). Vancomycin, linezolid, and teicoplanin were 100% sensitive and also against MRSA (22.6%), thus making these agents as the drug of choice for same. 32 No pan-drug resistant isolates were encountered in our study and a total of 43 isolates have shown multi drug resistance in our study (13.2%) which is significant in number.

Hence it is imperative to do a culture and sensitivity pattern of ear infections for effective management; thereby reducing further complications and improving clinical outcomes.

Based upon our study, the following guidelines are used for the efficacious management of ear infections is shown in (Table 4).

Conclusion

In accordance with many other studies, this study displays that there can be differences in the organisms affecting the middle ear and their susceptibility patterns. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus spp., were found to be the most common organisms in our study. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was showing resistance against commonly used antimicrobials like Fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins and reduced sensitivity to aminoglycosides and macrolides. Staphylococcus species were highly resistant to ampicillin and beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin. Therefore, evaluation of microbiological pattern and highlighting the need for routine culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in local area becomes useful in prescribing empirical antibiotics for efficacious treatment of otitis media, thereby minimalizing its complications and emergence of resistant strains. 32

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Source of Funding

None.

References

1 

K K Shrestha A Barakoti A S Rijal A Dhungana Bacteriological profile and antimicrobial sensitivity of common ear infectionsNepal Med Coll J2018201-36873

2 

E D Kitcher A Jangu K Baidoo Emergency ear, nose and throat admissions at the Korle-Bu Teaching HospitalGhana Med J2007411911

3 

V K Poorey A Iyer Study of bacterial flora in CSOM and its clinical significanceIndian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg200254291510.1007/BF02968724

4 

A Ali S B Naqvi D Sheikh Resistance pattern of clinical isolates from cases of chronic ear infection IIPak J Pharma Sci1998112317

5 

B Spellberg R Guidos D Gilbert J Bradley H W Boucher W M Scheld The epidemic of antibiotic-resistant infections: a call to action for the medical community from the Infectious Diseases Society of AmericaClin Infect Dis200846215564

6 

H Kumar S Seth Bacterial and fungal study of 100 cases of chronic suppurative otitis mediaJ Clin Diagn Res20115612247

7 

O V Akinpelu Y B Amusa E O Komolafe A A Adeolu A O Oladele S A Ameye Challenges in management of chronic suppurative otitis media in a developing countryJ Laryngol Otol200812211620

8 

B Edwin V Prasanna I Kannan V H Katiyar E Dhanapal Incidence of bacterial colonization in the oropharynx of patients with ear, nose and throat infectionsInt J Med Sci Public Health2014389314

9 

World Health Organization, Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance, World Health Organization2014

10 

V Yiengprugsawan A Hogan Ear infection and its associated risk factors, comorbidity, and health service use in Australian childrenInt J Pediatr2013201310.1155/2013/963132

11 

J L Paradise H E Rockette D K Colborn Otitis media in 2253 Pittsburgh-area infants: prevalence and risk factors during the first two years of lifePediatrics199799331833

12 

C D Bluestone J O Klein Otitis Media in Infants and Children. 4th Edn.BC Decker, IncHamilton, Ontario, Canada2007

13 

T U Samanth S G Jha V Sinha S Dadhich Bacteriology and drug susceptibility in chronic suppurative otitis media in Ear, Nose, and Throat outpatient and inpatient department of tertiary care Hospital, BhavnagarIndian J Otol2017234252510.4103/indianjotol.INDIANJOTOL_132_16

14 

R Shyamala P S Reddy The study of becteriologigal agents of chronic suppurative otitis media: Aerobic culture and evaluationJ Microbiol biotech Res20122715262

15 

J Gulati P L Tondon W Singh A S Bias Study of Bacterial Flora in Chronic suppurative otitis mediaIndian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1969218198

16 

J B Lyczak C L Cannon G B Pier Establishment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: Lessons from a versatile opportunistMicrobes Infect20002910516010.1016/s1286-4579(00)01259-4

17 

M S Attallah Microbiology of chronic suppurative otitis media with cholesteatomaSaudi Med J200021109247

18 

S Yeli H A Fattah Bacterial isolates and their antibiotic susceptibility in chronic discharging ears in populationInt J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci2014372716

19 

A Sattar A Alamgir Z Hussain S Sarfraz J Nasir Badar-E-Alam Bacterial spectrum and their sensitivity pattern in patients of chronic suppurative otitis mediaJ Coll Physicians Surg Pak20122221289

20 

F Addas M Algethami N Mahmalji S Zakai T Alkhatib Bacterial etiology and antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of ear infections at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi ArabiaJ Nat Sci Med2019231475210.4103/JNSM.JNSM_42_18

21 

K Mukassabi Bacteriology of discharging earsIr Med J2007100237980

22 

N U Khan N Ali N M Afridi M Arshad Sensitivity and spectrum of bacterial isolates in infectious otitis externaJ Coll Physicians Surg Pak20041431469

23 

J Bardanis D Batzakakis Types and causes of otorrheaAuris Nasus Larynx20033032537

24 

L García-Agudo P Aznar-Marín F Galán-Sánchez P García-Martos P Marín-Casanova M Rodríguez-Iglesias Otomycosis due to filamentous fungiMycopathologia201117243071010.1007/s11046-011-9427-5

25 

K R Aneja C Sharma R Joshi Fungal infection of the ear: A common problem in the North Eastern part of HaryanaInt J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2010746604710.1016/j.ijporl.2010.03.001

26 

A Yassin A Maher M K Moawad Otomycosis: A survey in the Eastern Province of Saudi ArabiaJ Laryngol Otol197892108697610.1017/s0022215100086242

27 

P M Mane A Basawraju Clinical significance of microbial flora in middle ear infections and its implicationsTrop J Med Res2016192128

28 

A Sharma N Pyadala Bacterial etiology of otitis media and their antibiogram among patients attending tertiary care hospitalInt J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg2020691604710.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20203557

29 

M Tahir A Jawaid A Abdullah M A Najam Bacterial culture and sensitivity in active chronic otitis media: 500 cases in combined military hospital RawalpindiPak J Otolaryngol201228568

30 

J Madana D Yolmo R Kalaiarasi S Gopalakrishnan S Sujata Microbiological profile with antibiotic sensitivity pattern of cholesteatomatous chronic suppurative otitis media among childrenInt J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol20117591104810.1016/j.ijporl.2011.05.025

31 

I A Mirza L Ali M Arshad Microbiology of chronic suppurative otitis media-experience at Bahawalpur. Pak Armed Forces MedPak Armed Forces Med J 2008583726

32 

A Agrawal D Kumar A Goyal S Goyal N Singh G Khandelwal Microbiological profile and their antimicrobial sensitivity pattern in patients of otitis media with ear dischargeIndian J Otol20131915810.4103/0971-7749.108149

33 

N A Aslam Z Ahmad R Azim Microbiology and drug sensitivity pattern of chronic suppurative otitis mediaJ Coll Physicians Surg Pak200414845961

34 

K M Nia G Sepehri H Khatmi M R Shakibaie Isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria from chronic suppurative otitis media patients in kerman, iranIran Red Crescent Med J201113128914



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 04-11-2021

Accepted : 07-01-2022


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Copyright permission

Get article permission for commercial use

Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmmtd.2022.008


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 946

PDF Downloaded: 541