Drug Investigation

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 270–277 | Cite as

Retrospective Resistance Pattern of Clinical Isolates In Vitro Against Imipenem and Other Antimicrobial Agents Between 1986 and 1989

  • W. Klietmann
  • J. Focht
  • K. Nösner
Original Research Article


The in vitro activity of imipenem and several other antibacterial agents (including broad spectrum penicillins, expanded spectrum cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones) was assessed against 130 033 clinical isolates of Gram-negative aerobic bacteria, Gram-positive aerobic bacteria, and anaerobic bacteria, collected in Germany between 1986 and 1989. Overall, 97.4% of the isolates were inhibited by an imipenem concentration of 4 mg/L. Most isolates of Xanthomonas maltophilia and Pseudomonas cepacia were resistant to imipenem between 1986 and 1989. However, when these 2 species are excluded, the frequency of resistance of the remaining isolates is < 1% each for Gram-negative, Gram-positive, and anaerobic species, indicating a level of activity of imipenem greater than that of any of the 18 comparative antibacterial agents.

Despite extensive clinical use in Germany between 1986 and 1989, the activity of imipenem against all bacterial species remained virtually unchanged. Of particular note is the maintenance of activity against P. aeruginosa, with only 1% of 1197 isolates being resistant in 1989. In contrast, a trend to an increasing incidence of resistance of some species was seen with a few of the other antimicrobials: the aminoglycosides and mezlocillin (X. maltophilia and P. cepacia); mezlocillin, piperacillin, and cefoperazone (Serratia spp.); cefuroxime (Serratia spp, Morganella morganii, and Proteus vulgaris); flucloxacillin and ofloxacin (coagulase-negative staphylococci); and the fluoroquinolones (Bacteroides fragilis). However, the clinical significance of some of these trends is negligible.


Fluoroquinolones Ofloxacin Imipenem Cefuroxime Piperacillin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Calandra G, Ricci R, Wang C, Brown K. Cross resistance and imipenem. Lancet 2: 340–341, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hallmann L, Burkhardt F. Klinische Mikrobiologie, pp. 49–163, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, 1974Google Scholar
  3. Klietmann W, Focht J, Nösner K. Antibacterial effect of imipenem in vitro against important aerobic and anaerobic strains isolated from clinical specimens. Chemioterapia 6: 243–250, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kropp H, Sundelof JG, Kahan JS, Kahan FM, Birnbaum J. MK 0787 (N-formimidoyl thienamycin): evaluation of in vivo and in vitro activities. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 17: 993–1000, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lennette EH. The manual of clinical microbiology, pp. 154–472, American Society of Microbiology, Washington DC, 1985Google Scholar
  6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard M7-A. NCCLS, Villanova, Pennsylvania, 1985aGoogle Scholar
  7. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference agar dilution procedure for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria: approved standard M11-A. NCCLS, Villanova, Pennsylvania, 1985bGoogle Scholar
  8. Nilsson L, Nilsson M, Jendle J. Subpopulations of variants resistant to imipenem in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 22: 643–649, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Quinn JP, Studemeister AE, DiVincenzo CA, Lerner SA. Resistance to imipenem in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical experience and biochemical mechanisms. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 10: 892–898, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Vallée E, Joly-Guillou ML, Bergogne-Berezin E. Activité comparative de l’imipénème, du céfotaxime et de la ceftazidime vis-à-vis d’Acinetobacter calcoaceticus. Presse Médicale 19: 588–591, 1990Google Scholar
  11. Werner H. Anaerobier-Infektionene, pp 129–170, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, 1985aGoogle Scholar
  12. Werner H. In-vitro Aktivität von Penicillinen gegen Anaerobier. Fortschritte der antimikrobiellen und antineoplastischen Chemotherapie 4: 1293–1308, 1985bGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Klietmann
    • 1
  • J. Focht
    • 1
  • K. Nösner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Laboratory MedicineMoersGermany

Personalised recommendations