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

Users Online : 45728

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 : 2021 | Month : July | Volume : 15 | Issue : 7 | Page : DC06 - DC09 Full Version

Phenotypic Characterisation, Virulence Determination and Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern of Enterococcus Species Isolated from Clinical Specimen in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kolkata


Published: July 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/48616.15077
Subhendu Sikdar, Sampa Sadhukhan, Amit Kumar Majumdar, Somnath Bhunia, Soma Sarkar, Swagata Ganguly Bhattacharjee

1. Demonstrator, Department of Microbiology, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 2. Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Microbiology, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 4. Demonstrator, Department of Microbiology, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 5. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 6. Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Somnath Bhunia,
Natural Green Complex, BD 37, Rabind Rapally, Krishnapur, P.O-C Prafulla Kanan, Kolkata-700101, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: somnath.bhunia06@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Enterococci are usually normal human commensal of gastrointestinal tract predominantly. They are considered as an important nosocomial pathogen now a day due to its intrinsic as well as increasing acquired antibiotic resistance resulting in a great threat to modern Medicine.

Aim: To determine prevalence of Enterococc isolated from clinical specimens with special reference to its virulence and antibiogram conventionally.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted over a period of two years (January 2019 to December 2020) with 326 Enterococci, isolated from various clinical specimens received by Department of Microbiology. Enterococc isolated from stool samples were excluded. They were identified and speciated conventionally as per standard laboratory protocol. Gelatinase, haemolysin and biofilm formation was determined for each isolate. Their antibiogram was also determined by disc diffusion methods over blood agar followed by Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) testing (as per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline). All statistical analysis was done by Chi-square test using Software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0.

Results: Among the total 4516 samples collected, growth of Enterococc was noted in 7.22% cases. Out of them, Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) (84.05%) out numbered Enterococcus faecium (E. faecium). Urine was the most predominant (55.22%) sample. A 73.93% isolates produced biofilm whereas 18.40% produced haemolysin and 19.94% produced gelatinase. Most of the isolates were susceptible to vancomycin (94.79%) and linezolid (98.77%). High level gentamicin resistance was seen in 54.6% cases. Ciprofloxacin was the most resistant antibiotic. Vancomycin Resistance Enterococcus (VRE) was detected in 5.21% cases only, out of which Van A type was detected phenotypically in most cases.

Conclusion: The high rate of resistance to high level gentamicin could fail treatment of gentamicin in combination with penicillin group of antibiotics. In clinical samples, the emergence of VRE strains makes treatment options more challenging.

Keywords

Antibiogram, Enterococci, Prevalence, Virulent

Enterococc are gram positive, facultatively anaerobic ovoid cocci that may occur in pair or short chains (1). It was previously classified as Group D Streptococcus, but later in 1984, a separate genus classification was introduced (2). Although, it was considered as commensal in intestinal canal, vaginal tracts and the oral cavity, but it possesses certain features that may have roles in pathogenesis (3). The increasing incidence of Enterococci as nosocomial pathogen is due to its natural ability to obtain and share extra chromosomal elements encoding virulence traits or antibiotic resistant genes (4). There are so many Enterococcal pathogenic factors including secreted virulence factors and adhesion factors have been detected in the last few years (5). The predominant factors are adhesion of collagen from E. faecalis (ace), aggregation substance (asa), extracellular surface protein (esp), and endocarditis and biofilm associated pilli (ebp) (6),(7). This aggregation substance increases bacterial adherence to renal tubular cells (8). Enterococcal colonisation and biofilm formation were promoted by esp, leading to resistance to stresses and adhesion to cells as seen in endocarditis and Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) (9). The gene cluster responsible for formation of pili by Enterococc is ebp. Adheison of collagen from E. faecalis (ace) is a collagen binding protein, belonging to the Microbial Surface Components Recognising Adhesive Matrix Molecules (MSCRAMM) family, helping in the pathogenesis of endocarditis (10).

Secreted virulence factors are hyaloronidase (hyl), cytolysin (cyl) and gelatinase (gelE) (11),(12). Gelatinase, an extracellular zinc-containing metalloproteinase, helps in degrading host tissue and provides nutrients (12). Cytolysin is a beta haemolytic enzyme in human. Hyaluronidase (Hyl), a degradative enzyme, causes damage to the tissues made of hyaluronic acid thus promoting spread of Enterococc and their toxins through host tissue (8).

Several studies have determined the prevalence of Enterococci in India (Pondicherry 7.22% (13), Lucknow 1.46% (14), Kolkata 10% (15), Mumbai 5.5% (16), Kolkata 4.8% (17)) However, only a very few studies focused on the virulence factors of Enterococci Suchi SE et al., and Jayavarthinni M et al., (5),(13).

This study was conducted to analyse the prevalence of Enterococcus species in various specimens, to detect various virulence factors like gelatinase, haemolysin and biofilm formation and to study antimicrobial resistance, in specific, VRE and high level aminoglycoside resistance to guide infection control practices.

Material and Methods

The present cross-sectional and observational study was conducted for a duration of two years, from January 2019 to December 2020 in the Department of Microbiology, NRS Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. West Bengal, India.

Inclusion criteria: All the heterogeneous clinical samples (urine, pus, blood, body fluids) from patients of indoor and Outpatient Department, received by the Department during this period were processed by standard laboratory protocol and isolated Enterococcus were included in this study (18).

Exclusion criteria: Enterococci isolated from stool samples were excluded.

Study Procedure

A total of 326 Enterococc isolates were included in this study. The genus Enterococcus was confirmed by gram stain, i.e., gram positive cocci in pairs and short chains, colony characters, pH, temperature, catalase test and biochemical tests like bile esculin hydrolysis, salt tolerance test using 6.5% NaCl, Arginine Decarboxylation, sugar fermentation using D (-) Arabinose, D-Mannitol, L (-) Sorbose, D- Sorbitol and D (+) Raffinose were carried out on colonies grown (18),(19). Strains were further identified to species level by using Vitek®2 compact system (BIOMERIEUX). All isolates were stocked in glycerol broth at (-) 80°C for further testing of virulence factors determination and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. All epidemiological parameters were analysed including prevalence rate, age and sex criteria.

Test for virulence factors: Production of gelatinase was assessed by the ability to liquefy gelatine (20). For detection, nutrient gelatin gel containing 12% gelatine was used. Organism inoculated by stab culture within it. After overnight incubation at 37°C, liquefaction was tested by tilting the tube (Table/Fig 1).

Haemolysin production was measured by the macroscopic appearance of complete zone of haemolysis (beta haemolysis) in blood agar plate supplemented with 5% sheep blood (Table/Fig 2) (21).

Biofilm production was assessed by christensen tube method using trypticase soy broth with 2% sucrose (22). A loopful of microorganisms was inoculated within it from overnight culture and incubated for 24 hours at 37°C. The tubes were decanted thereafter and washed thrice with Phosphate Buffer Saline (PBS) (pH 7.2). Then they were dried and stained with 0.1% crystal violet for 30 minutes. Excess stain was washed with deionised water. The tubes were dried then and observed for biofilm production. If a visible film of stain lines the sides and bottom of each tube, biofilm was considered to be positive (Table/Fig 3) (23).

Antibiotic susceptibility testing: Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method was used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood was used (24). The antibiotic discs were purchased from Hi-Media. The antibiotic discs and their potency were as follows: ampicillin (10 μg), gentamicin high content (120 μg), streptomycin high content (300 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), vancomycin (30 μg), nitrofurantoin for urinary isolates only (300 μg), ceftriaxone (30 μg), teicoplanin (30 μg), and linezolid (30 μg). E-test was done to determine the MIC of vancomycin for all the clinical isolates of Enterococci. Different genotypes of Van gene were analysed by looking into resistance patterns of vancomycin and teicoplanin. The results were interpreted as per CLSI guidelines (25). E. faecalis ATCC 29212 and E. faecalis ATCC 51299 were included as a quality control strain. All culture media, reagents and chemicals were obtained from Hi-Media Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra India.

Statistical Analysis

Microsoft Excel and Microsoft word (version 10) were used to generate the tables and figures. All statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test. The software used for the statistical analysis was SPSS version 22.0.

Results

Out of 4516 heterogeneous clinical specimens, 326 Enterococc were isolated and identified, having prevalence rate of 7.22%. Among 326 Enterococcus species, 274 (84.05%) species were E. faecalis and 52 (15.95%) species are E. faecium. Highest prevalence of Enterococcus was seen in males 168 (51.53%) followed by females 158 (48.47%), with M:F=1.06:1. The maximum percentage of isolation was seen among the age group >60 years (33.74%) (Table/Fig 4)a,b. The (Table/Fig 5) shows sample distribution of cases, maximum Enterococcus was isolated from urine specimen.

Out of total 326 isolates, 19.94% were gelatinase producer, whereas, 18.40% isolates produced haemolysin and 73.93% formed biofilm. E. faecalis was found to be significantly more virulent (Table/Fig 6).

The VRE cases were detected in 5.21% isolates out of which Van A type (MIC values in the range of 64-256 μg/mL) was detected phenotypically in most cases (64.71%) followed by Van B (35.29%) (MIC values in the range of 64-128 μg/mL). Antimicrobial resistance patterns showed resistivity to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin and gentamicin (Table/Fig 7).

Discussion

The changing clinical patterns of the Enterococcus infections and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns have become an important topic of discussion, as it is emerging as nosocomial pathogen nowadays (26). In present study, prevalence rate of Enterococc isolated from various clinical specimens was 7.22%, which was consistent with the study of Jayavarthinni M et al., (13). The overall prevalence of Enterococcal infection varies across continents, countries and within hospitals. In India, the occurrence varies from 1-36% (15). Das S, in Kolkata showed prevalence rate 10% (15). Agarwal J et al., in Lucknow showed prevalence rate of Enterococcus to be 1.46% (14), whereas Shinde RS et al., in Mumbai showed 5.5% (16). Anbumani N et al., from Southern India showed it only 2% (27), whereas Desai PJ et al., stated a higher prevalence of 22.19% (26).

In present study, E. faecalis was the predominant species. This finding was similar with findings of Fernandes SC and Dhanashree B and also with Bose S et al., (28),(29). E. faecalis was found to be the predominant isolate in Das S, Sharma S et al., Mule P et al., and Bose M et al., (15),(30),(31),(32). But there are few studies which showed E. faecium as predominant species by Karmarkar MG et al., and Jain S et al., (8),(33), Jayavarthinni M et al., and Jaiswal S et al., (13),(34).

Nautiyal S et al., showed that male was more affected than female (35). This finding was similar with present study showing male preponderance (51.53%). Tripathi A et al., also showed male preponderance in their study (36).

In present study, the maximum percentage of isolation was seen among the age group >60 years (33.74%). Jayavarthinni M et al., showed that more commonly affected age group of more than 50 years (13). The maximum percentage of isolation was seen among the age group 40-60 years, in the study of Sharma S et al., (30). Though there are some studies showing that young age group was more commonly affected, such as Nautiyal S et al., (35).

In present study, isolates were highest from urine (55.22%), followed by pus and blood. This finding was consistent with Jayavarthinni M et al., Sharma S et al., Bose M et al., and Jaiswal S et al., (13),(30),(32),(34).

In this study, 19.94% were gelatinase producer, whereas, 18.40% isolates produced haemolysin and 73.93% formed biofilm. E. faecalis was found to be significantly more virulent. Jayavarthinni M et al., also showed that study on virulence factors revealed that 19.84% strains produced gelatinase (13), 18.25% produced haemolysin and 73.81% produced biofilm. Banerjee T and Anupurba S also revealed in their study that 9.03% strains produced gelatinase, 31.61% produced haemolysin and 26.12% produced biofilm and E. faecalis was the most virulent strain among all Enterococcus species (37). Higher percentage of haemolysin and gelatinase production was noted in some other studies also (27),(38),(39). Fernandez SC and Dhanashree B, showed haemolysin production in 82% cases and gelatinase production in 40.6% of the isolates (28). Whereas, Tellis R and Muralidharan S showed 44% haemolysin production and 32% gelatinase production in their study (38). Higher rates of biofilm formation were noted in Upadhyaya GPM et al., (86.6%) (39).

In the present study, majority of the Enterococcus isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin (74.23%) and ampicillin (62.88%). Only 6.13% isolates were resistant to nitrofurantoin (for urinary isolates). A 54.60% isolates were resistant to high level gentamicin and 32.52% to streptomycin (elevated level). Similar finding was also noted in Parameswarappa J et al., Jayavarthinni M et al., Sharma S et al., and Mendiratta DK et al., (1),(13),(30),(40).

The most recent and important resistance in Enterococc is VRE which has been increasingly reported from all parts of the world (17). In present study 5.21% the isolates are VRE which showed significant similarity to results reported from other studies ranging between 1.7-20% in tertiary care hospitals in other parts of India (17),(30),(32),(35). In the present study authors have phenotypically isolated 64.71% strain of Van A, and 35.29% strains of Van B. Similar finding was also noted in the study of Nautiyal S et al., (35).

In this study, authors found that all clinical isolates of VRE were susceptible to linezolid. Linezolid nonsusceptible Enterococci (1.23%) may be an emerging clinical problem in other countries. Similar finding was noted in Tripathi A et al., (36). Overall, E faecium was found to be more resistant than E. faecalis, in present study, which was also similar with the study of Mule P et al., and Jaiswal S et al., (31),(34).

Limitation(s)

One of the major limitations of present study was not able to use molecular methods for identification, virulence factor determination and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. As there was very low number of E. faecium isolates found in present study, data could not be generalised.

Conclusion

Various studies have shown an increase in the rate of infection and antibiotic resistance in Enterococcus species. High resistivity to commonly used antibiotics and emergence of VRE strains has further aggravate the situation. Thus, we suggest more rational use of antibiotics and infection control in our health care settings.

References

1.
Parameswarappa J, Basavaraj VP, Basavaraj CM. Isolation, identification, and antibiogram of Enterococc isolated from patients with urinary tract infection. Annals of African Medicine. 2013;12(3):176-81. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Schleifer KH, Kilpper-Balz R. Transfer of Streptococcus faecalis and Streptococcus faecium to the genus Enterococcus nom. rev. as Enterococcus faecalis comb. nov. and Enterococcus faecium comb. nov. Int J Sys Bacteriol. 1984;34:31-34. [crossref]
3.
Murray BE. The life and times of the Enterococcus. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1990;3:46-65. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Tendulkar PM, Baghdayan AS, Shankar N. Pathogenic Enterococci: New developments in the 21st Century. Cell Mole Life Sci. 2003;60:2622-36. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Suchi SE, Shamsuzzaman SM, Uddin BMM, Yusuf MA. Detection of virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance in Enterococc isolated from urinary tract infection. Bangladesh J Infect Dis. 2017;4(2):30-34. [crossref]
6.
Johnson JR, Clobots C, Hirt H, Waters C, Dunny G. Enterococcal aggregation substance and binding substance are not major contributors to urinary tract colonisation by Enterococcus faecalis in a mouse model of ascending unobstructed urinary tract infection. Infect Immun. 2004;72:2445-48. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Kafil HS, Mobarez AM, Moghadam MF. Adhesion and virulence factor properties of enterococc isolated from clinical samples in Iran. Indian J Pathol Microbial. 2013;56:238-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Karmarkar MG, Gershom ES, Mehta PR. Enterococcal infections with special reference to phenotypic characterization and drug resistance. Indian J Med Res. 2004;119:22-25.
9.
Kayaoglu G, Orstavik D. Virulence factors of Enterococcus faecalis: Relationship to endodontic disease. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2004;15:308-20. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Koch S, Hufnagel M, Theilacker C, Huebner J. Enterococcal infections: Host response, therapeutic, and prophylactic possibilities. Vaccine. 2004;22:822-30. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Mansouri S, Shakibaie MR, Mahboob S. Antibiotic susceptibility in Enterococci isolated from patients in Kerman. Southeastern Iran. Iran J Med Sci. 2005;30:68-72.
12.
Maschieto A, Martinez R, Palazzo ICV, Darini ALDC. Antimicrobial resistance of Enterococcus sp. isolated from the intestinal tract of patients from a University hospital in Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2004;99:763-67. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Jayavarthinni M, Kannaiyan K, Abarna V, Sindhanai V, Sethumadhavan K. Phenotypic speciation of Enterococc with special reference to prevalence, virulence and antimicrobial resistance. Int J Res Med Sci. 2015;3:2623-29. [crossref]
14.
Agarwal J, Kalyan R, Singh M, High level Aminoglycoside resistance and β-lactamase production in Enterococc at a tertiary care hospital of India. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2009;62:158-59.
15.
Das S. Role of Enterococcus in nosocomial urinary tract infection in a tertiary care hospital in West Bengal. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS). 2017;16(12):79-81.
16.
Shinde RS, Koppikar GV, Oommen S. Characterization and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of clinical isolates of Enterococc at a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 2012;5(2):85-88. [crossref]
17.
Mukherjee K, Bhattacharjee D, Chakraborti G, Chatterjee SS. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Enterococcus species from various clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital in Kolkata. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research. 2016;3(6):1565-67.
18.
Indian Council of Medical Research. Standard Operating Procedures Bacteriology. 2019;2(2):56-58.
19.
Winn, Washington C, and Elmer W. Koneman. Koneman’s Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2016.
20.
Marra A, Dib-Hajj F, Lamb L, Kaczmarek F, Shang W, Beckius G, et al. Enterococcal virulence determinants may be involved in resistance to clinical therapy. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 2007;58:59-65. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Collee JG, Miles RS, Watt B. Tests for the Identification of Bacteria. In: Collee JG, Marmion BP, Fraser AG and Simmons A (Eds.), Mackie & McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, 14th Edition, New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996;131-51.
22.
Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Younger JJ, Baddour LM, Barrett FF, Melton DM, et al. Adherence of coagulase-negative staphylococci to plastic tissue culture plates: A quantitative model for the adherence of staphylococc to medical devices. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1985;22:996-1006. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Triveda L, Gomathi S. Detection of biofilm formation among the clinical isolates of Enterococci: An evaluation of three different screening methods. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2016;5(3):643-50. [crossref]
24.
Wellinghausen N, Chatterjee I, Berger A, Niederfuehr A, Proctor RA, Kahl BC. Characterization of clinical Enterococcus faecalis small-colony variants. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(9):2802-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Performance Standards for Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 30th Edition. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2020.
26.
Desai PJ, Pandit D, Mathur M, Gogate A. The prevalence, identification and the distribution of various species of Enterococc which were isolated from clinical samples, with special reference to the urinary tract infections in catheterized patients. India J Med Microbial. 2001;19:132-37.
27.
Anbumani N, Rajalakshmi K, Varadharajan M. Speciation and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Enterococc from a tertiary health care center of south India. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2011;4(4):989-90.
28.
Fernandes SC, Dhanashree B. Drug resistance and virulence determinants in clinical isolates of Enterococcus species. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2013;137:981-85.
29.
Bose S, Ghosh A, Barapatre R. Prevalence of drug resistance among enterococcus species isolated from a tertiary care hospital. International Journal of Medical Health Sciences. 2012;1:38-44.
30.
Sharma S, Gupta P, Rishi S. Prevalence of vancomycin resistant Enterococcus and its antimicrobial resistance pattern in clinical isolates. International Journal of Medical and Health Research. 2018;12(4):94-96.
31.
Mule P, Patil N, Gaikwad S. Medically Important Enterococcus species from isolates of urinary tract infection with their antimicrobial susceptibility. International Journal of Current Advanced Research. 2018;07(5):12506-12.
32.
Bose M, Chatterjee SS, Mukherjee K, Das S, Ghosh C, Chakraborty B, et al. Enterococcal urinary taract infection: An emerging threat. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2015;4(17):2898-904. [crossref]
33.
Jain S, Kumar A, Kashyap B, Kaur IR. Clinico-epidemiological profile and high-level aminoglycoside resistance in enterococcal septicemia from a tertiary care hospital in East Delhi. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research. 2011;1:80-83. [crossref] [PubMed]
34.
Jaiswal S, Singh A, Verma RK, Singh DP, Kumari S. Characterization, speciation and antimicrobial resistance pattern of Enterococcus species isolated from clinical specimens at a rural tertiary care hospital. Int J Res Med Sci. 2017;5:3484-87. [crossref]
35.
Nautiyal S, Jauhari S, Joshi G, Kataria VK. Characterization of Enterococcus species in a tertiary care hospital. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy. 2016;6(8):48-51. [crossref]
36.
Tripathi A, Shukla SK, Singh A, Prasad KN. Prevalence, outcome and risk factor associated with vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Northern India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2016;34:38-45. [crossref] [PubMed]
37.
Banerjee T, Anupurba S. Prevalence of virulence factors and drug resistance in clinical isolates of enterococci: A study from North India. Journal of Pathogens. 2015;2015:692612. [crossref] [PubMed]
38.
Tellis R, Muralidharan S. A prospective study of antibiotic resistance and virulence factors in Enterococc isolated from patients with end stage renal disease. Int J Biomed Res. 2012;3:174-80. [crossref]
39.
Upadhyaya GPM, Ravikumar KL, Umapathy BL. Review of virulence factors of Enterococcus: An emerging nosocomial pathogen. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2009;27(4):301-05. [crossref] [PubMed]
40.
Mendiratta DK, Kaur H, Deotale V, Thamke DC, Narang R, Narang P. Status of high level aminoglycoside resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis in a rural hospital of central India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2008;26:369-71. [crossref]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/48616.15077

Date of Submission: Jan 20, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Mar 01, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Apr 30, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? No
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jan 24, 2021
• Manual Googling: Apr 19, 2021
• iThenticate Software: May 25, 2021 (23%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

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