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.