Increasing prevalence of ESBL production among Irish clinical Enterobacteriaceae from 2004 to 2008: an observational study

Table 2 Antimicrobial resistance in ESBL E. coli from urine by residence and hospitalization status

	Community	Hospital inpatients	LSF	Total (% resistant)	P value for trend
Amikacin, n (%)	4 (20.0)	5 (25.0)	11 (55.0)	20 (6.0)	0.033
Gentamicin, n(%)	26 (24.8)	34 (32.4)	45 (42.9)	105 (29.2)	0.002
Ciprofloxacin, n (%)	89 (29.5)	101 (33.4)	112 (21.9)	302 (83.0)	0.000
Trimethoprim, n (%)	98 (33.0)	93 (31.3)	61 (35.7)	297 (81.4)	0.006
Nalidixic Acid, n (%)	102 (32.0)	104 (32.6)	113 (35.4)	319 (88.1)	0.000
Nitrofurantoin, n (%)	8 (36.4)	4 (18.2)	10 (45.5)	22 (6.4)	n.s.

Legend to Table 2. The prevalence of ESBL E. coli (%) resistant to non beta-lactam antimicrobial agents by patient status. Community means those resident in the community at time of isolation, hospitalised means hospitalised patients who normally reside in the community and LSF refers to residents of a LSF whether in hospital or in the LSF at the time of isolation of ESBL E. coli. P values indicate the significance of a trend of increasing prevalence of resistance from the community population through to the patient population resident in an LSF. Note comparison of data for hospitalised and non-hospitalised LSF patients showed no significant difference.

ISSN: 1471-2334