Klebsiella pneumoniae is the cause of nosocomial and community acquired infections, such as urinary tract, respiratory, and blood infections. It harbors many virulence-associated genes including
magA,
rmpA,
WcaG, fimbriae, and siderophores, which help the bacteria overcome the immune system and cause infection. Drug resistant, especially ESBL - producing
K. pneumoniae strains, contribute to treatment failure and increase morbidity and mortality in patients (
26-
28).
In this study, the frequency of SHV was significantly lower than 69.6% and 67.4% reported by Shahcheraghi et al. (
25) and Feizabadi et al. (
29), respectively. Frequency of TEM was significantly lower than 54%, reported by Feizabadi et al. (
29), yet in accordance with 32.1% reported by Shahcheraghi et al. (
25). These differences were the result of differences in infection control system and therapeutic regimens in different parts of Iran. Age of over 60, long hospitalization, diabetes and previous antibiotic treatment were other factors associated with the ESBL phenotype (
30).
Capsular type K1 frequency was significantly lower than 39.5% and 64.3% reported by Liu et al. (
31) and Lee et al. (
32), yet significantly higher than 1.4% reported by Maatallah et al. (
33). Capsular type K2 frequency was significantly higher than 18.4% and 20% reported by Liu et al. (
30) and Lee et al. (
32), yet significantly lower than 5% reported by Maatallah et al. (
33). Frequency of
rmpA was significantly higher than 5.5%, 3.6%, and 7.0% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27), Maatallah et al. (
33), and Derakhshan et al., respectively (
34). Frequency of
wcaG was significantly higher than 2.7% and 8.6% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27) and Maatallah et al. (
33), yet significantly lower than 23.5% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
34).
The resistance rate to imipenem was significantly higher than 1.4% and 0.05% reported by Liu et al. (
31), and Derakhshan et al. (
34), and also reports of Shahcheraghi et al. (
25), Peerayeh et al. (
26), Derakhshan et al. (
27), Peerayeh et al. (
28), and Ranjbar et al. (
35), which reported no resistance to imipenem, yet significantly lower than 20.8% reported by Amraie et al. (
36). The resistance rate to ciprofloxacin was significantly lower than 44.4%, 37.1%, 42.5%, and 52.5% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27), Liu et al. (
31), Derakhshan et al. (
34), and Ranjbar et al. (
35), yet in accordance with 18%, 18%, and 15.6% reported by Shahcheraghi et al. (
25), Peerayeh et al. (
26), and Amraie et al. (
36). The resistance rate to amoxicillin - clavulanic acid was significantly lower than 31.7% and 28.6% reported by Liu et al. (
31) and Pereira et al. (
37), yet in accordance with 100% and 60.5% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27) and Derakhshan et al. (
34), respectively.
The resistance rate to nitrofurantoin was significantly lower than 40% and 71% reported by Ranjbar et al. (
35) and Amraie et al. (
36). The resistance rate to trimethoprim - sulfamethoxazole was significantly lower than 39%, 55.5%, 39.3%, 50%, 51.5%, and 54% reported by Peerayeh et al. (
26), Derakhshan et al. (
27), Peerayeh et al. (
26), Derakhshan et al. (
34), Ranjbar et al. (
35), and Amraie et al. (
36), respectively, yet in accordance with 32.9% reported by Liu et al. (
31). The resistance rate to cefepime was significantly higher than 12.9% reported by Liu et al. (
31), yet in accordance with 37.5% reported by Peerayeh et al. (
26), also significantly lower than 80.5% and 57% reported by Peerayeh et al. (
26) and Derakhshan et al. (
34).
The resistance rate to amikacin was significantly higher than 14%, 27%, 10%, 22%, and 4.8% reported by Shahcheraghi et al. (
25), Peerayeh et al. (
26), Liu et al. (
31), Amraie et al. (
36), and Pereira et al. (
37), yet in accordance with 31.5% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
34), also significantly lower than 50% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27). The resistant rate to aztreonam was significantly lower than 100%, 59%, and 92.5% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27), Derakhshan et al. (
34), and Ranjbar et al. (
35), yet in accordance with 39% and 38.1% reported by Peerayeh et al. (
26) and Pereira et al. (
37), also, significantly higher than 30% reported by Liu et al. (
31). The resistance rate to ceftazidime was significantly higher than 31.3%, 51.1%, 35.8%, and 4.8% reported by Shahcheraghi et al. (
25), Peerayeh et al. (
28), Liu et al. (
31), and Pereira et al. (
37), yet significantly lower than 100%, 57%, 100%, and 49.7% reported by Derakhshan et al. (
27), Derakhshan et al. (
34), and Ranjbar et al. (
35).