Korean J Vet Res > Volume 61(3); 2021 > Article
Nakbubpa, Janchawna, Thumchop, Panboonthong, and Pornsukarom: Prevalence, species, and antimicrobial resistance of Acinetobacter in surgical practice and laboratory dog husbandry room environments

Abstract

Acinetobacter is a bacteria found in the environment and clinical specimens, causing nosocomial infection and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threats. This study examined the prevalence, species, and AMR characteristics of Acinetobacter isolated from surgical practice and the laboratory dog husbandry room environments (n = 235) at Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok veterinary hospital during 2018-2019. The prevalence of Acinetobacter in the laboratory dog husbandry room and veterinary belongings were 2.55% and 0.43%, respectively. Species determination was Acinetobacter hemolyticus (2.13%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (0.43%) from environments in the laboratory dog husbandry room, and Acinetobacter junii (0.43%) from the shoes used in the surgical practice room. AMR was observed in both study environments and the specimens sent to the Veterinary Diagnostic Center. These isolates had a high resistant percentage to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (84.62%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (61.54%), and cephalexin (53.85%) but were susceptible to imipenem. Compared to the isolates recovered from the clinical specimens, most isolates derived from environments exhibited multidrug resistance and shared correlated resistance patterns. These results highlight the need for sanitization in the dog husbandry room. Furthermore, the AMR results can be used as a preliminary baseline for studying AMR Acinetobacter contamination in animals and their environments.

Introduction

Acinetobacter is gram-negative coccobacilli or short rods in the family Moraxellaceae [1], which can be found in water, soil, sewage, and foods, as well as in the skin and mucous membranes of humans and animals [2,3]. This group of bacteria recently has an impact on public health because they are considered as the source of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and multidrug resistance (MDR), particularly for carbapenems, which cause difficulties in treatment and result in a high mortality rate [4]. Since 1988, Acinetobacter has comprised 10% of bacteria found frequently as nosocomial infections in the United States and worldwide [5].
In Thailand, the incidence of Acinetobacter infections in hospitals increased from 2%-4% to 10%-30% for the last decade, particularly in the ward unit [6]. The National Anti-microbial Resistant Surveillance Center Thailand also reported that the resistance rates of Acinetobacter spp. to antimicrobial agents increased gradually during 2000-2020 [7]. In addition, Acinetobacter was found mostly as contamination on nurses’ hands [8], and can be isolated from the soil, water, air, sink, urine bottle, bed, and respiratory equipment in hospitals [9,10]. Clinical specimens, such as urine, exudate, respiratory tract, and blood samples, are a major source of Acinetobacter infection [11,12]. Moreover, Acinetobacter baumannii is the main causative agent usually recovered from human clinical cases [6].
In addition to human hospitals, Acinetobacter can often be found in clinical specimens of animals [13]. Among several species, A. baumannii is important in animal hospitals underlying severe illnesses, such as canine pyoderma, urinary tract infection, and foal sepsis, as well as AMR infections [6,14]. Based on a study in Germany during 2000-2008 [15], MDR A. baumannii isolates recovered from veterinary hospitals and clinics were distinctly resistant to carbapenem groups, such as human cases [16].
Other species of Acinetobacter, which are not A. baumannii (non-baumannii Acinetobacter), including Acinetobacter pittii, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, Acinetobacter bereziniae, Acinetobacter hemolyticus, Acinetobacter johnsonii, Acinetobacter lwoffii, Acinetobacter schindleri, Acinetobacter radioresistens, Acinetobacter beijerinckii, Acinetobacter junii, Acinetobacter generi, and Acinetobacter ursingii have also been reported in animals particularly in livestock, horses, and pets [13,17]. Some outstanding species, such as A. hemolyticus, were found in the general environment and tended to cause severe clinical cases concerned with the environment in hospitals. On the other hand, AMR, particularly carbapenems, was not determined clearly [18]. A. junii has been reported in calculi obstructions in the ureter [19]. As mentioned previously, Acinetobacter is found mainly in nature. Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted on the epidemiology and pathogenesis in the environment [2], leading to gaps of knowledge about the relationship of this bacteria in humans, animals, the environment, and the loss of AMR transferring pathways [14,16].
According to the gaps, this study focused on the prevalence of all Acinetobacter species and their AMR patterns recovered from surgical practice and laboratory dog husbandry room environments at the veterinary hospital, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok. Furthermore, the AMR patterns from the study environment were compared with the same bacterial group isolated from clinical specimens sent for analysis at Veterinary Diagnostic Center, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok during 2016-2020. These results can be used as baseline data in the study of AMR Acinetobacter in animals, humans, and the environment.

Materials and Methods

Sample collection

This study was a descriptive research. Two hundred and thirty-five swabbed samples from the surgical practice and laboratory dog husbandry room at the veterinary hospital, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Chonburi province, Thailand, between January 2019 and March 2020. The samples were composed of four categories: laboratory dog husbandry room environment, such as floor under cages, the inner area of cages, dog beds, pet food cabinet, room floor, sewer pipe, sink, and storage area floor (n = 100); laboratory dogs, such as oral mucous membrane, anus, blood, saliva, leash, collar, feeding bowl, skin swab, and cotton containing alcohol used in skin scrub (n = 80); veterinary belongings, including shoes used in the surgical practice room, used syringe and needle (n = 35), and hands of people in contact with dogs (n = 20).

Acinetobacter isolation

All samples were taken for bacterial isolation and biochemical tests applied from previous studies [20-23]. Briefly, swabbed samples were cultured on tryptic soy broth (TSB) and incubated at 37°C and 44°C for 24 to 48 hours. The turbid TSB was then transferred to culture on MacConkey agar and incubated under the same conditions above. Subsequently, a single typical (pale pink or colorless) colony was transferred from MacConkey agar and identified by gram staining, motility, morphology, and oxidation/fermentation tests. Moreover, biochemical tests [21,24] were applied for species confirmation. The species of all confirmed Acinetobacter isolates were recorded and stored for further analysis.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

All Acinetobacter isolates were taken to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility test by the disc diffusion method of Kirby-Bauer [25] using data from previous studies [13-15,20] for selected antimicrobial discs. The antimicrobial-resistant percentages were then concluded and compared with Acinetobacter isolates derived from the clinical specimens of the Veterinary Diagnostic Center, which had been reported in 2016-2020.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was applied to determine the prevalence of Acinetobacter derived from four categories (laboratory dogs husbandry room, laboratory dog, veterinarian belongings, and hands of people in contact with dogs) for the most variables. The analysis with the likelihood ratio test and Fisher’s exact test, using R version 3.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria) were applied. The results were reported as the odds ratios (ORs) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Prevalence of Acinetobacter in environments

The overall prevalence of Acinetobacter in this study was 2.98% (7/235). Considering the categories, the prevalence in the environments of surgical practice and laboratory dog husbandry rooms were 2.55% (6/235), or 6.0% (6/100) in this category (OR, 8.55; 95% CI, 1.013-72.218; p = 0.044). The veterinary belongings had a 0.43% (1/235) prevalence, or 2.86% (1/35) in this category, while there was no positive sample for Acinetobacter in the laboratory dogs and hands of people in contact with dogs (Table 1). The laboratory dog husbandry room environment showed the highest prevalence, which was determined in the samples from the floor under cages, dogs beds, storage area floor, and inner area of the cages. Significantly, the prevalence in dogs beds was 20.0% (2/10) with OR, 11, which was higher than other factors in laboratory dog husbandry room environment. The odds of Acinetobacter prevalence in the floor under cages, storage area floor, the inner area of the cages, and the shoes used in the surgical practice room were 4.67, 4.06, 4.06, and 2.55, respectively, compared to other factors (Table 1).

Species of Acinetobacter isolates

All 235 swabbed samples were determined to be Acinetobacter for seven isolates, including five isolates of A. hemolyticus (2.13%, 5/235) recovered from the floor under cages (0.85%, 2/235), storage area floor (0.4%, 1/235), the inner area of cages (0.43%, 1/235), and dogs’ bed (0.43%, 1/235). One isolate of A. junii (0.43%, 1/235) was recovered from shoes used in the surgical practice room, and one isolate of A. baumannii (0.43%, 1/235) was recovered from a dogs’ bed (Fig. 1).

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Most Acinetobacter isolates recovered from the environments in surgical practice, the laboratory dog husbandry rooms (6/7), and clinical specimens of Veterinary Diagnostic Center (5/6) were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid at 84.62%. In contrast, the A. hemolyticus recovered from the storage area floor and A. lwoffii vdc2 from the Veterinary Diagnostic Center were resistant to sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. In addition, 61.54% of Acinetobacter isolates were resistant to this antimicrobial type, except for A. hemolyticus and A. baumannii recovered from the dog beds, and A. lwoffii vdc2 was susceptible to this drug (Table 2). Approximately 53.85% of the isolates recovered from the environments in surgical practice and laboratory dog husbandry room (4/7) and clinical specimens of Veterinary Diagnostic Center (3/6) were resistant to cephalexin, except A. hemolyticus recovered from storage area floor and dog beds, A. junii recovered from shoes used in the surgical practice room and A. lwoffii vdc2 (Table 2).

AMR patterns of Acinetobacter

The AMR patterns of Acinetobacter primarily found in this study were amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, and doxycycline (13.04%) of A. hemolyticus isolated from the inner area of cages, the floor under the cage, and vdc2, while amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (13.04%) of A. junii recovered from the shoes used in the surgical practice room, A. hemolyticus vdc1 and A. lwoffii vdc1 (Table 3). Another pattern with a high percentage of resistance (13.04%) was clindamycin from A. lwoffii vdc1 and 2 and A. hemolyticus vdc1. Other MDR patterns found mainly in this study (8.70%) were amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim of A. hemolyticus recovered from the floor under the cages; amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, doxycycline, and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim of A. hemolyticus recovered from the inner area of cages and floor under cages; amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, and ceftriaxone of A. baumannii isolated from dogs’ bed and vdc1; amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim of A. hemolyticus recovered from the floor under cages and A. johnsoniii vdc1 (Table 3). On the other hand, all Acinetobacter isolates recovered from the environments in surgical practice and laboratory dog husbandry room (7/7) and two isolates from Veterinary Diagnostic Center, including A. hemolyticus vdc2 and A. baumannii vdc1, were susceptible to imipenem (Table 2).

Discussion

Prevalence of Acinetobacter in environments

In this study, the prevalence of Acinetobacter in the laboratory dog husbandry rooms environment was 6.0% (Table 1), which was similar to a previous study. Uwingabiye et al. [12] reported that clinical specimens of hospitals showed a prevalence of 6.94%. According to the ORs in Table 1, the prevalence of Acinetobacter in the environment of laboratory dog husbandry rooms was 8.55 times higher than the other factors, including laboratory dogs, veterinary belongings, and people in contact with the dog’s paws. The environment is an intermediate source of bacteria dissemination. Two reports stated that the healthcare environments could be accumulation and multiplication sources of Acinetobacter affecting patients [26,27]. In addition, the dog beds, which are closely in contact with animals, have 11 times the risk of Acinetobacter prevalence compared to other locations in the laboratory dog husbandry room (Table 1). This group of bacteria can survive in many environments and produce biofilms to protect their vegetative cells on both abiotic and biotic surfaces, particularly in A. baumannii, leading to prolonged survival and nosocomial infection [16,27]. This problem would be more severe if the healthcare settings have insufficient sanitization [27].
Unlike the prevalence of A. baumannii recovered from medical equipment, such as respiratory tubes and blood pressure monitors [28], the prevalence in veterinary belongings was only 2.9%. Hence, the highest prevalence was found only in shoes used in the surgical practice room, needles, and syringes but did not cover other veterinary belongings. Moreover, the laboratory dogs in this study were healthy and had no septicemia or severe clinical diseases [13,20]. Therefore, Acinetobacter was not detected in the needles and syringes. Although the shoes used in the surgical practice room had a prevalence of 6.7%, it was assumed that those shoes might have been a reservoir of Acinetobacter [2].
No positive Acinetobacter sample was found in the laboratory dogs, which contrasts with several reports. A study in Reunion Island of France claimed that pets (dogs and cats) were carriers of A. baumannii with a prevalence of 6.5% [29]. Black et al. [30] detected Acinetobacter in 7% in the clinical specimens from the canine intensive care unit and sent for bacterial culture and antimicrobial sensitivity test. On the other hand, some studies explained that healthy laboratory dogs without an immunocompromised state would have a primary line of body defense that could depress the multiplication of undesirable normal flora, such as Acinetobacter spp. [31,32].
Several studies reported that the hands of healthy people could be a multiplication source of A. baumannii spreading to patients, particularly with wounds or injuries on the skin [8,28], which is in contrast to the present study in that no Acinetobacter was found on staff hands. The reason, in this case, might be that people in contact with dogs had a strict handwashing regimen and recognized the importance of hygiene [14]. This suggests that the bacterial transferring pathway between dogs and humans or the environment and humans could be broken by hygiene and sanitation practices [14,20,33].

Species of Acinetobacter isolates

Three species of Acinetobacter were recovered in the environment of this study (Fig. 1). A. hemolyticus has been found in the environment, such as water and human skin [2]. Therefore, this species would be found on the floor under cages, storage area floor, the inner area of cages, and dog beds. The results suggest that dogs roaming outside the building transferred these bacteria from the environment into husbandry rooms. A. junii has been reported in viscous mud, sewage, water, soil, and human skin [2], including animals [17]. The determination of A. junii in shoes used in the surgical practice room might originate from sewage in environmental contamination. A. baumannii can be found in humans, animals, the environment, and medical equipment, including clinical specimens in hospitals and veterinary hospitals [12,13,15,23,28,33]. This species was isolated from dog beds, which were assumed to be contaminated.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

According to Table 2, the class of antimicrobials showing a high resistance percentage was the cephalosporin group, including amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (84.62%), cephalexin (53.85%), and ceftriaxone (23.08%). This group of antimicrobials is used frequently in clinics [34]. These results were correlated with previous studies reporting that approximately 90% of this bacteria recovered from clinical specimens and the hospital environment were resistant to both old generation and new broad-spectrum cephalosporins [11,20]. Moreover, 23.08% of Acinetobacter isolates in this study were also resistant to the aminoglycoside drug (amikacin). Recently, these two groups of antimicrobials tended to increase the level of resistance [20].
A. baumannii was considered the most outstanding species of MDR [23,29,33,35]. This species uses various resistant mechanisms to survive against β-lactams and carbapenems, particularly the production of β-lactamase or carbapenemases [13,36]. In agreement with this study, A. baumannii recovered from the dog beds and vdc1 were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, and ceftriaxone (Table 3). As mentioned previously, this group of antibiotics is generally used for treatment in animal healthcare [34], which might increase the selection pressure of AMR in the environment leading to horizontal gene transfer [13,33,36]. Amikacin is usually selected to treat MDR Acinetobacter infections [13,28], but most of the Acinetobacter isolates in the present study were susceptible to this drug, except for A. hemolyticus recovered from the floor under the cage and vdc1 (Table 3). Only one isolate of A. baumannii recovered from dog beds in this study was resistant to enrofloxacin, which was the same as the study before. The researchers reported that a small percentage of Acinetobacter isolates were resistant to this drug [13]. Zordan et al. [15] reported that all MDR A. baumannii isolated from veterinary clinics in Germany were resistant to clindamycin. In contrast to the present study, only 13.04% of clindamycin resistance was detected (Table 3). Interestingly, several studies reported the accelerated trend of carbapenems resistance [7,13,16]. On the other hand, there was no resistance to imipenem or carbapenem. These results highlight the need for rational drug use in animal hospitals and livestock production to reduce AMR threats.

AMR patterns of Acinetobacter

This study identified five predominant MDR patterns of Acinetobacter (Table 3) that were resistant to at least three antimicrobial agent groups [37], representing approximately 45.5% of the related isolates. Several species isolated in the environment of this study as well as clinical cases from animal hospitals sent for analysis at the Veterinary Diagnostic Center, including A. hemolyticus, A. baumannii, A. johnsoniii, had MDR patterns. A previous study stated that A. baumannii was mostly found with the MDR patterns of Acinetobacter recovered from all clinical specimens in veterinary hospitals [13]. This contrasts with the present study showing that A. hemolyticus presented the highest frequency of MDR patterns. The MRD Acinetobacter determination in the hospital environment would relate to nosocomial infections and circulate in both human and animal intensive care units [16,35]. On the other hand, AMR gene transmission and resistant mechanisms of Acinetobacter should be considered for further study.
In conclusion, Acinetobacter is a gram-negative bacteria generally found in the environment and clinical specimens of human and veterinary hospitals. In this study, the determination of this bacteria in the environments of laboratory dog husbandry room and veterinary belongings were A. hemolyticus, A. junii, and A. baumannii. The finding emphasizes the importance of sanitary management and cleaning the operating place and laboratory dog husbandry room to reduce the source of bacterial contamination. In addition, most antimicrobial-resistant patterns of the Acinetobacter isolates recovered from surgical practice, and laboratory dog husbandry rooms environments were MDR, which is in agreement with the isolates derived from the clinical specimens of the Veterinary Diagnostic Center. These MDR Acinetobacter determined the public health importance of the environment and its related clinical specimens.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported and encouraged by Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok. We thank the university veterinary hospital for sampling collection, Veterinary Diagnostic Center for data assistance and we appreciate Areeya Sukkasem for hard working in laboratory.

Fig. 1.
Percentage of Acinetobacter’s species.
kjvr-2021-61-e26f1.jpg
Table 1.
Prevalence of Acinetobacter
Factor Prevalence (%) OR (95% CI) p-value*
Environments in laboratory dog husbandry room 6.0 (6/100) 8.55 (1.013-72.218) 0.044*
 Floor under cage 10.0 (2/20) 4.67 (0.845-25.779) 0.112
 Room floor 0 (0/20) 0 0
 Sewer pipe 0 (0/10) 0 0
 Dogs bed 20.0 (2/10) 11 (1.845-65.566) 0.031*
 Storage area’s floor 10.0 (1/10) 4.06 (0.441-37.327) 0.265
 Inner area of cage 10.00 (1/10) 4.06 (0.441-37.327) 0.265
 Sink 0 (0/10) 0 0
 Pet food cabinet 0 (0/10) 0 0
Laboratory dog 0 (0/80) 0 0
 Saliva 0 (0/15) 0 0
 Oral mucous membrane and anus 0 (0/15) 0 0
 Blood 0 (0/10) 0 0
 Leash and collar 0 (0/10) 0 0
 Feeding bowl 0 (0/10) 0 0
 Skin swab 0 (0/10) 0 0
 Cotton contained alcohol used for skin scrub 0 (0/10) 0 0
Veterinary belongings 2.9 (1/35) 0.95 (0.111-8.149) >0.999
 Shoes used in surgical practice room 6.7 (1/15) 2.55 (0.287-22.653) 0.374
 Used syringe and needles 0 (0/20) 0 0
Hands of person contacted dog 0 (0/20) 0 0

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

* Fisher exact test statistic at p < 0.05.

Table 2.
Susceptibility pattern of Acinetobacter isolates to antimicrobial agents
Acinetobacter isolates* Antibiotic
AK AMC CL CRO DO IMP ENR SXT CN S DA CAZ NOR
Acinetobacter hemolyticus 1 S S S S S S S R - - - - -
A. hemolyticus 2 S R I S S S S S - - - - -
A. hemolyticus 3 S R R S R S I R - - - - -
A. hemolyticus 4 R R R S I S I R - - - - -
A. hemolyticus 5 R R R S R S S R - - - - -
Acinetobacter junii 1 S R S S S S S R - - - - -
Acinetobacter baumannii 1 S R R R I S R S - - - - -
Acinetobacter johnsonii vdc 1 S R R - S - S R - - - - -
Acinetobacter lwoffii vdc 1 S R - - I - S R - - R - -
A. lwoffii vdc 2 S S S - S - S S S - R - -
A. hemolyticus vdc 1 R R - R - - S R - - R - S
A. hemolyticus vdc 2 - R R S R S S - - - - R S
A. baumannii vdc 1 S R R R R S - - S S - - -
Percentage of resistance 23.08 84.62 53.85 23.08 30.77 0 7.69 61.54 0 0 23.08 7.69 0

AK, amikacin; AMC, amoxycillin-clavulanic acid; CL, cephalexin; CRO, ceftriaxone; DO, doxycycline; IMP, imipenem; ENR, enrofloxacin; SXT, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim; CN, gentamycin; S, streptomycin; DA, clindamycin; CAZ, ceftazidime; NOR, norfloxacin; R, resistant; I, intermediate; S, susceptible; -, did not test; 0, no resistance.

* A. hemolyticus 1, isolate from storage area floor; A. hemolyticus 2, isolate from dogs bed; A. hemolyticus 3, isolate from inner area of cage; A. hemolyticus 4 and 5, isolate from floor under cage; A. junii 1, isolate from shoes used in surgical practice room; A. baumannii 1, isolate from dogs bed; vdc 1 and 2 of latter Acinetobacter, isolates were recovered from clinical specimens of veterinary diagnostic center.

Table 3.
Predominant resistance patterns (R-patterns) of Acinetobacter isolates
Predominant R-patterns (n) Acinetobacter isolates* Percentage
AK, AMC, CL, SXT (2) Acinetobacter hemolyticus 4, A. hemolyticus 5 8.70
AMC, CL, DO, SXT (2) A. hemolyticus 3, A. hemolyticus 5 8.70
AMC, CL, CRO (2) Acinetobacter baumannii 1, A. baumannii vdc1 8.70
AMC, CL, SXT (2) A. hemolyticus 4, Acinetobacter johnsonii vdc1 8.70
AMC, CL, DO (3) A. hemolyticus 3, A. hemolyticus 4, 13.04
A. hemolyticus vdc2
AMC, SXT (3) Acinetobacter junii 1, A. hemolyticus vdc1, A. lwoffii vdc1 13.04
AK, CRO (1) A. hemolyticus vdc1 4.35
DA (3) Acinetobacter lwoffii vdc1, A. lwoffii vdc2, 13.04
A. hemolyticus vdc1
AMC (1) A. hemolyticus 2 4.35
DO (1) A. baumannii vdc1 4.35
SXT (1) A. hemolyticus 1 4.35
ENR (1) A. baumannii 1 4.35
CAZ (1) A. hemolyticus vdc2 4.35

AK, amikacin; AMC, amoxycillin-clavulanic acid; CL, cephalexin; SXT, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim; DO, doxycycline; CRO, ceftriaxone; DA, clindamycin; ENR, enrofloxacin; CAZ, ceftazidime.

* A. hemolyticus 1, isolate from storage area floor; A, hemolyticus 2, isolate from dogs bed; A. hemolyticus 3, isolate from inner area of cage; A. hemolyticus 4 and 5, isolate from floor under cage; A. junii 1, isolate from shoes used in surgical practice room; A. baumannii 1, isolate from dogs bed; vdc1 and 2 of latter Acinetobacter, isolates were recovered from clinical specimens of veterinary diagnostic center.

References

1. Chanawong A. Nonfermentative Gram Negative Bacilli. In: Sribenjalak P, Lulitanon A, eds. Clinical Bacteriology. 3rd ed. pp. 6-38, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 2004.
2. Al Atrouni A, Joly-Guillou ML, Hamze M, Kempf M. Reservoirs of non-baumannii Acinetobacter species. Front Microbiol 2016;7:49.
pmid pmc
3. Rajamohan G, Srinivasan VB, Gebreyes WA. Biocide-tolerant multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical strains are associated with higher biofilm formation. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:287-289.
crossref pmid
4. Vattanavanit V, Chayakul P. Acinetobacter infections in the intensive care unit. Songkla Med J 2013;2:91-100.
5. NNIS System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system report, data summary from January 1990-May 1999, issued June 1999. A report from the NNIS System. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:520-532.
pmid
6. Saelao S, Utiswannakul A. Therapy for patient with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. J Health Res 2008;22:131-136.
7. National Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance of Thailand. Antimicrobial Resistance Microbes Situation in 2000-2020. pp. 9, 11-13, National Institute of Health of Thailand, Department of Medical Sciences, Nonthaburi, 2020.
8. Chastre J. Infections due to Acinetobacter baumannii in the ICU. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2003;24:69-78.
pmid
9. Bergogne-Bérézin E. The increasing significance of outbreaks of Acinetobacter spp: the need for control and new agents. J Hosp Infect 1995;30 Suppl:441-452.
crossref pmid
10. Villegas MV, Hartstein AI. Acinetobacter outbreaks, 1977-2000. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:284-295.
pmid
11. Rebic V, Masic N, Teskeredzic S, Aljicevic M, Abduzaimovic A, Rebic D. The importance of Acinetobacter species in the hospital environment. Med Arch 2018;72:325-329.
crossref
12. Uwingabiye J, Frikh M, Lemnouer A, Bssaibis F, Belefquih B, Maleb A, Dahraoui S, Belyamani L, Bait A, Haimeur C, Louzi L, Ibrahimi A, Elouennass M. Acinetobacter infections prevalence and frequency of the antibiotics resistance: comparative study of intensive care units versus other hospital units. Pan Afr Med J 2016;23:191.
crossref pmid pmc
13. Maboni G, Seguel M, Lorton A, Sanchez S. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Acinetobacter spp. of animal origin reveal high rate of multidrug resistance. Vet Microbiol 2020;245:108702.
crossref pmid
14. van der Kolk JH, Endimiani A, Graubner C, Gerber V, Perreten V. Acinetobacter in veterinary medicine, with an emphasis on Acinetobacter baumannii. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2019;16:59-71.
crossref pmid
15. Zordan S, Prenger-Berninghoff E, Weiss R, van der Reijden T, van den Broek P, Baljer G, Dijkshoorn L. Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in veterinary clinics, Germany. Emerg Infect Dis 2011;17:1751-1754.
pmid pmc
16. Nocera FP, Attili AR, De Martino L. Acinetobacter baumannii: its clinical significance in human and veterinary medicine. Pathogens 2021;10:127.
crossref pmid pmc
17. Rafei R, Hamze M, Pailhoriès H, Eveillard M, Marsollier L, Joly-Guillou ML, Dabboussi F, Kempf M. Extrahuman epidemiology of Acinetobacter baumannii in Lebanon. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:2359-2367.
crossref pmid pmc
18. Castro-Jaimes S, Bello-López E, Velázquez-Acosta C, Volkow-Fernández P, Lozano-Zarain P, Castillo-Ramírez S, Cevallos MA. Chromosome architecture and gene content of the emergent pathogen Acinetobacter haemolyticus. Front Microbiol 2020;11:926.
crossref pmid pmc
19. Abo-Zed A, Yassin M, Phan T. Acinetobacter junii as a rare pathogen of urinary tract infection. Urol Case Rep 2020;32:101209.
crossref pmid pmc
20. Bergogne-Bérézin E, Towner KJ. Acinetobacter spp. as nosocomial pathogens: microbiological, clinical, and epidemiological features. Clin Microbiol Rev 1996;9:148-165.
crossref pmid pmc
21. Bouvet PJ, Grimont PA. Identification and biotyping of clinical isolates of Acinetobacter. Ann Inst Pasteur Microbiol 1987;138:569-578.
crossref pmid
22. Constantiniu S, Romaniuc A, Iancu LS, Filimon R, Taraşi I. Cultural and biochemical characteristics of Acinetobacter spp. strains isolated from hospital units. J Prev Med 2004;12:35-42.
23. Gupta N, Gandham N, Jadhav S, Mishra RN. Isolation and identification of Acinetobacter species with special reference to antibiotic resistance. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2015;6:159-162.
crossref pmid pmc
24. Lone R, Shah A, Kadri SM, Lone S, Faisal S. Nosocomial multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter infections-clinical findings, risk factors and demographic characteristics. Bangladesh J Med Microbiol 2009;3:34-38.
crossref
25. Wayne PA. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-Second Informational Supplement: CLSI document M100-S22. pp. 66-74, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Pennsylvania, 2011.
26. Karageorgopoulos DE, Falagas ME. Current control and treatment of multidrug- resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:751-762.
crossref pmid
27. Otter JA, Yezli S, Salkeld JA, French GL. Evidence that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of hospital pathogens and an overview of strategies to address contaminated surfaces in hospital settings. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(5 Suppl):S6-S11.
28. Almasaudi SB. Acinetobacter spp. as nosocomial pathogens: epidemiology and resistance features. Saudi J Biol Sci 2018;25:586-596.
crossref pmid
29. Belmonte O, Pailhoriès H, Kempf M, Gaultier MP, Lemarié C, Ramont C, Joly-Guillou ML, Eveillard M. High prevalence of closely-related Acinetobacter baumannii in pets according to a multicentre study in veterinary clinics, Reunion Island. Vet Microbiol 2014;170:446-450.
crossref pmid
30. Black DM, Rankin SC, King LG. Antimicrobial therapy and aerobic bacteriologic culture patterns in canine intensive care unit patients: 74 dogs (January-June 2006). J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2009;19:489-495.
crossref pmid
31. Doughari HJ, Ndakidemi PA, Human IS, Benade S. The ecology, biology and pathogenesis of Acinetobacter spp.: an overview. Microbes Environ 2011;26:101-112.
crossref pmid
32. Rosenbaum P, Aureden K, Cloughessy M, Goss L, Kassai M, Streed SA. Guide to the Elimination of Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Transmission in Healthcare Settings. pp. 6-13, APIC, Washington, DC, 2010.
33. Müller S, Janssen T, Wieler LH. Multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in veterinary medicine: emergence of an underestimated pathogen? Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2014;127:435-446.
pmid
34. Leclercq R, Cantón R, Brown DF, Giske CG, Heisig P, MacGowan AP, Mouton JW, Nordmann P, Rodloff AC, Rossolini GM, Soussy CJ, Steinbakk M, Winstanley TG, Kahlmeter G. EUCAST expert rules in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:141-160.
crossref pmid
35. Bansal G, Allen-McFarlane R, Eribo B. Antibiotic susceptibility, clonality, and molecular characterization of carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii from Washington DC. Int J Microbiol 2020;2020:2120159.
crossref pmid pmc
36. Da Silva GJ, Domingues S. Insights on the horizontal gene transfer of carbapenemase determinants in the opportunistic pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii. Microorganisms 2016;4:29.
crossref pmc
37. Jung J, Park W. Acinetobacter species as model microorganisms in environmental microbiology: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015;99:2533-2548.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •  0 Scopus
  • 193 View
  • 20 Download
ORCID iDs

Kulchai Nakbubpa
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-4188

Ratchadaporn Janchawna
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8392-4847

Wanatchaporn Thumchop
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0700-199X

Ailisa Panboonthong
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3852-4283

Suchawan Pornsukarom
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-4188

Related articles


About
Browse articles
For contributors
Policy
Editorial Office
#401-1, 85 Bldg., College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University
1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea
Tel: +82-2-880-1229    Fax: +82-2-878-9762    E-mail: jvs@ksvs.or.kr                

Copyright © 2021 by The Korean Society of Veterinary Science.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next