MICROBIOLOGICAL PROFILE AND ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF PUS CULTURE ISOLATES FROM OTITIS MEDIA AT A TERTIARY CARE CENTRE IN JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

Abstract

Background: Chronic and active otitis media are associated with a changing microbial spectrum and local antimicrobial resistance patterns. Local culture data are needed to guide treatment and antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: We performed a descriptive analysis of 119 anonymized pus culture and antimicrobial susceptibility reports from patients evaluated at Sawai Man Singh Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Exact repeated reports were removed during data preparation; repeat cultures with different dates or results were retained. Organisms from polymicrobial reports were counted separately. Susceptibility results were summarized using the report-specific S, I and R categories, with antibiotic-specific denominators. Results: Of 119 reports, 116 (97.5%; 95% CI 92.9–99.1) were culture-positive, two (1.7%) were labelled contaminated and one (0.8%) showed no growth. The 116 positive reports yielded 126 isolates; ten reports were polymicrobial. Gram negative organisms accounted for 91 (72.2%) isolates, Gram-positive organisms for 33 (26.2%) and Candida spp. for two (1.6%). Pseudomonas spp. was predominant (69/126, 54.8%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (17/126, 13.5%), Klebsiella spp. (7/126, 5.6%) and Escherichia coli (6/126, 4.8%). Among Pseudomonas spp. isolates, susceptibility was highest to piperacillin–tazobactam (63/65, 96.9%) and imipenem (59/67, 88.1%); ciprofloxacin susceptibility was 32/69 (46.4%). Among S. aureus isolates, susceptibility was 16/17 (94.1%) for linezolid, doxycycline and co-trimoxazole, and 16/16 (100%) for vancomycin; 10/17 (58.8%) were resistant to cefoxitin, but this was not independently reclassified as MRSA. Conclusion: Pseudomonas spp. dominated the Jaipur pus culture reports and showed substantial variation across tested agents. Culture-directed treatment and periodic local antibiograms are warranted. The findings should be interpreted at the culture-report level because patient-level uniqueness and several laboratory method details were not available in the master chart.