الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 156 |  |  |
| | | from | 156 | | |
Abstract
This study was carried out during the period from June 2014 until May 2015. A total number of 300 samples were collected as follow:
150 samples from patients (100 wound swabs from patients with clinical signs of septic wounds and 50 blood samples from neonates with bacteremia), 75 samples from healthcare workers (doctors and nurses) and 75 environmental samples (floors, walls, bed linens, water taps, toilet seats, etc.....) from Surgery Departments and Neonatal ICUs of Minia University Hospital, Minia General Hospital and Minia Insurance Hospital. The subjects were 110 (48.9%) males and 115 females (51.1%) with an age range from 1 week to 70 years.
Out of the 300 samples, 60 (20%) samples were isolated and identified as Enterococci, while 240 (80%) samples were negative for this organism. Out of the 60 enterococcal isolates, E.faecium was the most prevalent enterococcal species (63.3% E.faecium, 10% E. faecalis and 26.7% other enterococci using biochemical reactions, 53.3% E.faecium, 31.7% E. faecalis and 10% other enterococci using PCR). The Enterococci prevalence rate was higher among females (51%) than males (49%). The highest prevalence rate was in the age group 1-20 years (71.4%) then in the age groups >50 years followed by 41-50 years then 31 – 40 years and lastly the neonates and the age group 21-30 years where the percentage of isolation was low (10%) in both of them. E. faecium isolated more from the age groups 1-20 years and 41-50 years (100%). However no isolates of E faecalis were found in the age groups 1-20 years and 41-50 years. E faecalis isolated more from the neonates (100%).
Out of 60 enterococcal isolates, 35/100(35%) isolates were obtained from wound samples, 5/50(10%) isolates from blood samples, 11/75(14.7%) isolates from healthcare workers and 9/75(12%) isolates from environment.
After antimicrobial sensitivity testing of enterococcal isolates against 12 different antibiotics, all isolates were completely resistant to cefepime. There was high resistance among enterococcal isolates to the following antimicrobials: 57 (95%) of the total isolates were resistant to Ampicillin, 52 (86.6%) to Rifampin, 50 (83.3%) to Erythromycin, 48 (80%) to Amoxicillin-Clavulanic , 48 (80%) to Gentamicin, 47 (78.3%) to Tetracycline, 41 (68.3%) to Ciprofloxacin and 36 (60%) to Vancomycin. On the other hand, there was low resistance to the following antimicrobials; 5 (8.3%) of the total isolates were resistant to Imipenem, 11 (18.4%) were resistant to Teicoplanin and 13 (21.7%) were resistant to Linezolid. Importantly, the proportion of MDR enterococcal isolates was 100% indicating a serious issue in treating infections with this organism with empirical strategies. Our study reported that resistance to antimicrobial agents was more prevalent with E.faecium compared to E.faecalis.