Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens.
Loading...
Date
2016-04
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Context: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infectious
diseases encountered in clinical practice. Emerging resistance of the
uropathogens to the antimicrobial agents due to biofilm formation is a matter of
concern while treating symptomatic UTI. However, studies comparing different
methods for detection of biofilm by uropathogens are scarce. Aims: To compare
four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens.
Settings and Design: Prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary
care hospital. Materials and Methods: Totally 300 isolates from urinary samples
were analyzed for biofilm formation by four methods, that is, tissue culture
plate (TCP) method, tube method (TM), Congo Red Agar (CRA) method and
modified CRA (MCRA) method. Statistical Analysis: Chi‑square test was
applied when two or more set of variables were compared. P < 0.05 considered
as statistically significant. Considering TCP to be a gold standard method for our
study we calculated other statistical parameters. Results: The rate of biofilm
detection was 45.6%, 39.3% and 11% each by TCP, TM, CRA and MCRA
methods, respectively. The difference between TCP and only CRA/MCRA
was significant, but not that between TCP and TM. There was no difference
in the rate of biofilm detection between CRA and MCRA in other isolates, but
MCRA is superior to CRA for detection of the staphylococcal biofilm formation.
Conclusions: TCP method is the ideal method for detection of bacterial biofilm
formation by uropathogens. MCRA method is superior only to CRA for detection
of staphylococcal biofilm formation.
Description
Keywords
Biofilm, detection, four, methods, uropathogen
Citation
Panda Pragyan Swagatika, Chaudhary Uma, Dube Surya K. Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens. Indian Journal of Pathology & Microbiology. 2016 Apr-June 59(2): 177-179.