Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens

• Published in: Indian journal of pathology & microbiology Vol. 59; no. 2; pp. 177 - 179
• Main Authors: Panda, Pragyan, Chaudhary, Uma, Dube, Surya
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Publications 01.04.2016; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: Bacteriological Techniques - methods; Biofilm, detection, four, methods, uropathogen; Biofilms - growth & development; Comparative analysis; Diagnosis; Growth; Health aspects; Humans; Medical tests; Microbial mats; Prospective Studies; Tertiary Care Centers; Urinary tract infections; Urinary Tract Infections - microbiology; Biofilm; detection; four; methods; uropathogen
• ISSN: 0377-4929; 0974-5130
• DOI: 10.4103/0377-4929.182013

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.