Objective: The aim of present study was to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of Enterococci species in different clinical samples.

Materials and Methods: A total of 17162 clinical samples (Urine, Pus, Blood, Wound swab, peritoneal fluid, etc.) were received from different OPD and IPD to our department. All the samples were processed with standard procedure. Isolation and Identification of Isolates were done on the basis of Grams staining,   motility, blood agar, mac-conkeys agar, nutrient agar, bile aesculin hydrolysis tests, PYR test and salt tolerance test.

Results: Out of 17162 clinical samples, a total of 354 (2.06%) Enterococci isolates were isolated.  Enterococci were more frequently isolated from urine (60.46 %) followed by pus (19.20%) and wounds (12.72%). Among the 354 isolates of Enterococci, only 201 (56.78%) isolates represented pure cultures of  Enterococci, whereas 153 (43.22%) grew along with other Gram positive or Gram negative organisms of which majority were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherchia coli, Proteus species and Staphylococcus aureus. The majority of the isolates were E.faecalis 83.61%, while E.faecium accounted for 16.39 %.

Conclusion: The incidence and prevalence of enterococcal urinary tract infection is   increasing due to the result of use of catheterization and irrelevant, improper, under dose antimicrobials. So consider the enterococcal species as essentially pathogenic as they are isolated in pure culture from various clinical specimens.

Keywords: Enterococcus species, prevalence, VRE, Nosocomial infections.

1. Murray BE. The life and times of enterococci. Clin Microbial Rev 1990; 3:46-65.
2. Harakeh HS, Uwaydah M, Matar GM. amplified Random DNA typing of faecalis isolated from Enterococcus polymorphic Lebanese individuals. J Med 2000; 5(1):18-20. East j med2000;18.20.
3. Koch S et al. Enterococcal infections: host response, therapeutic and Prophylactic Possibilities .Vaccine 2004; 22:822-30
4. Liassine N, Jan I, Auckenthaler R. Characterization of Frei R, glycopeptide resistant enterococci from a Swiss hospital. j Clin Microbiol 1998; 36:1853-8.
5. Nelson McGregor KF, AR, Amyes GB, Young RRS, Brown HK. Isolation and characterization of glycopeptide resistant enterococcci from hospitalized patients over a 30-month period. Clin Microbial 2000; 38:2112-6.
6. Sahm L, Smith C, land M, Mundy 1..M. Rapid DF, Fre Evecharacterization schemes for surveillance of isolates of vancomycin resistant enterococci. I CM; Alit-01 1997; 35:2026-30.
7. Cetinkaya Y, Falk P, Mayhall Rev 200t); G. Vancomycin resistant enterococci Clin Microbiol rev 200013:686-707..
8. Cereda RF, Gales AC, Silbert S, loner RN, Satter I N. Molecular typing and antimicrobial susceptibility of vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecium in Brazil. Infection control hospital epidemil 1999 2002;
9. Hsueh of p; teng ij vancomycin Wang jll: chang c, chen yc Emergence Hosp university Infect Control 1999; II Vatir, ice 0II multiple II., (hang l.1 4t t, AI ione4,. lien A hospital VC..
10. Desai 11, Pandit D Mathur M NI, Gogate A. Prevalence, identification and distribution of various species of enterococci isolated from various clinical sample special reference to urinary tract infection in catheterized patients. Indian J Med Microbial 21,01;
11. Mathai Margaret A, goerge V, Brahmadathan KN. Identification and distribution of various spp. Of enterococci from urine. Indian J Med Ro: 1994; 100:10-4.
12. Schaerberg IR,. Cayes RP. Major trends in the microbiology, etiology to nosocomial infections. Am I Med 1991; 91:795-825.
13. Essentials of medical microbiology by A.S. Sastry and sandhya bhatt k-2016.

Dr Satyendu Sagar

Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Nalanda Medical College, Patna, India