Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Serratia spp. Isolates and an Exploratory Comparison of Antimicrobial Resistance by Acquisition Setting: A Two-Year Retrospective Study.
{"title":"Clinical and Microbiological Profile of <i>Serratia spp</i>. Isolates and an Exploratory Comparison of Antimicrobial Resistance by Acquisition Setting: A Two-Year Retrospective Study.","authors":"Türkan Tüzün, Sedef Zeliha Öner","doi":"10.2147/IDR.S644832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the clinical and microbiological profile of <i>Serratia spp</i>. isolates recovered at a tertiary-care hospital and to explore whether resistance differed by the acquisition category recorded in the source data.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 157 consecutive clinical isolates from 146 patients recovered from September 27, 2019, through September 27, 2021. The primary between-group analysis retained one first-listed isolate per patient (n=146); Fisher's exact tests, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and Holm adjustment across 12 antimicrobials were used. A generalized estimating equation analysis of all 157 isolates, clustered by patient, was performed as a sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong><i>Serratia marcescens</i> accounted for 128/157 isolates (81.5%), and sputum or tracheal aspirate accounted for 86/157 (54.8%). Resistance was lowest for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (2/157, 1.3%), gentamicin (6/157, 3.8%), amikacin (7/157, 4.5%), and meropenem (7/157, 4.5%), and highest for imipenem (27/157, 17.2%). In the patient-level analysis, 90 isolates were community-classified and 56 were hospital-classified. Ertapenem resistance was 6/90 (6.7%) versus 11/56 (19.6%; odds ratio 3.42, 95% CI 1.19-9.86), but the comparison did not remain significant after Holm adjustment (nominal p=0.031; adjusted p=0.342). No antimicrobial showed a multiplicity-adjusted between-group difference. The clustered all-isolate analysis yielded the same overall interpretation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides a historical local description of <i>Serratia</i> isolates collected in 2019-2021. The acquisition-category comparisons were exploratory and did not identify a robust resistance difference after accounting for repeated isolates and multiple comparisons. These data should not be used alone to guide current empirical therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":13577,"journal":{"name":"Infection and Drug Resistance","volume":"19 ","pages":"644832"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13626005/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection and Drug Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S644832","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the clinical and microbiological profile of Serratia spp. isolates recovered at a tertiary-care hospital and to explore whether resistance differed by the acquisition category recorded in the source data.
Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 157 consecutive clinical isolates from 146 patients recovered from September 27, 2019, through September 27, 2021. The primary between-group analysis retained one first-listed isolate per patient (n=146); Fisher's exact tests, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and Holm adjustment across 12 antimicrobials were used. A generalized estimating equation analysis of all 157 isolates, clustered by patient, was performed as a sensitivity analysis.
Results: Serratia marcescens accounted for 128/157 isolates (81.5%), and sputum or tracheal aspirate accounted for 86/157 (54.8%). Resistance was lowest for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (2/157, 1.3%), gentamicin (6/157, 3.8%), amikacin (7/157, 4.5%), and meropenem (7/157, 4.5%), and highest for imipenem (27/157, 17.2%). In the patient-level analysis, 90 isolates were community-classified and 56 were hospital-classified. Ertapenem resistance was 6/90 (6.7%) versus 11/56 (19.6%; odds ratio 3.42, 95% CI 1.19-9.86), but the comparison did not remain significant after Holm adjustment (nominal p=0.031; adjusted p=0.342). No antimicrobial showed a multiplicity-adjusted between-group difference. The clustered all-isolate analysis yielded the same overall interpretation.
Conclusion: This study provides a historical local description of Serratia isolates collected in 2019-2021. The acquisition-category comparisons were exploratory and did not identify a robust resistance difference after accounting for repeated isolates and multiple comparisons. These data should not be used alone to guide current empirical therapy.
目的:描述在一家三级保健医院恢复的沙雷菌分离株的临床和微生物学特征,并探讨源数据中记录的获取类别是否存在耐药性差异。患者和方法:我们回顾性分析了2019年9月27日至2021年9月27日期间从146例患者中连续分离出的157株临床分离株。主要组间分析保留了每位患者1个首发分离株(n=146);在12种抗菌素中使用Fisher精确检验、95%置信区间的优势比和Holm调整。对所有157株按患者聚类的分离株进行广义估计方程分析,作为敏感性分析。结果:粘质沙雷菌占128/157株(81.5%),痰液或气管吸入物占86/157株(54.8%)。耐药最低的是甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲恶唑(2/157,1.3%)、庆大霉素(6/157,3.8%)、阿米卡星(7/157,4.5%)、美罗培南(7/157,4.5%),最高的是亚胺培南(27/157,17.2%)。在患者水平分析中,90株分离株为社区分型,56株为医院分型。厄他培南耐药性为6/90 (6.7%)vs 11/56(19.6%;优势比3.42,95% CI 1.19-9.86),但在Holm校正后比较不显著(名义p=0.031;校正p=0.342)。没有抗菌药物显示多重调整组间差异。聚类全隔离分析得出了相同的总体解释。结论:本研究提供了2019-2021年收集的沙雷菌分离株的历史地方性描述。获取类比较是探索性的,在考虑重复分离和多次比较后,没有发现强大的抗性差异。这些数据不应单独用于指导当前的经验性治疗。
期刊介绍:
About Journal
Editors
Peer Reviewers
Articles
Article Publishing Charges
Aims and Scope
Call For Papers
ISSN: 1178-6973
Editor-in-Chief: Professor Suresh Antony
An international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the optimal treatment of infection (bacterial, fungal and viral) and the development and institution of preventative strategies to minimize the development and spread of resistance.