OBJECTIVE: Sensitivity to antibiotics of Escherichia coli isolated from intrahospital and extrahospital bacteriurias is analized. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sensitivity to nineteen antibiotics used in the clinical practise was determined in strains of Escherichia coli isolated from intrahospital and extrahospital bacteriurias. RESULTS: The prevalence of in-vitro susceptibilities to antibiotics were (hospital, state health service clinic, health center-primary-care): imipenem (100%-100%-100%; p=NS), amikacin (100%-100%-99.7%; p=NS), fosfomicyn (98.6%- 98.4%-99.6%; p=NS), cefepime (96%-96.9%-98.3%; p=NS), piperacillin-tazobactam (96%-95.3%-96.6%; p=NS), aztreonam (93.5%-94.7%-97.7%; p<0.001), ceftazidime (93.5%-94.3%-97.8%; p<0.001), cefotaxime (93.1%-95%-97.7%; p<0.001), cefixime (92.7%-94.6%-96.7%; p<0.05), nitrofurantoin (92%-94.7%-94.7%; p=NS), cefuroxime (88.4%-93.1%- 95%; p<0.001), amoxicillin-clavulanic (87.7%-88.7%-93.8%; p<0.001), tobramicyn (87%-93.7%-93.8%; p<0.001), gentamcin (85.9%-92.8%-93%; p<0.001), cefazolin (84.4%-88.7%-91.6%; p<0.01), ciprofloxacin (63.8%-71.4%-78.4%; p<0.001), norfloxacin (63%-70.8%-78.2%; p<0.001), cotrimoxazole (65.2%-68.6%-74.9%; p<0.01) and ampicillin (35.5%-42.5%-47.8%; p<0.01). (*NS= No significant differences). CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge of the sensitivity of uropathogens to antimicrobians can allow us to initiate empirical therapy of urinary tract infections.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la sensibilidad a varios antibióticos en cepas de Escherichia coli aisladas en muestras de orina de pacientes hospitalarios y extrahospitalarios. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se analizaron los urocultivos positivos para Escherichia coli obtenidos de muestras de pacientes hospitalizados y atendidos en consultas externas hospitalarias y atención primaria. Se determinó la sensibilidad de este germen a diecinueve antibióticos de uso hospitalario y/o extrahospitalario. RESULTADOS: Según el origen hospitalario, consultas externas hospitalarias y atención primaria, respectivamente, la sensibilidad in vitro ha sido la siguiente: imipenem (100%, 100% y 100%; p=NS), amikacina (100%, 100% y 99,7%; p=NS), fosfomicina (98,6%, 98,4% y 99,6%; p=NS), cefepima (96%, 96,9% y 98,3%; p=NS), piperacilina-tazobactam (96%, 95,3% y 96,6%; p=NS), aztreonam (93,5%, 94,7% y 97,7%; p<0,001), ceftazidima (93,5%, 94,3% y 97,8%; p<0,001), cefotaxima (93,1%, 95% y 97,7%; p<0,001), cefixima (92,7%, 94,6% y 96,7%; p<0,05), nitrofurantoína (92%, 94,7% y 94,7%; p=NS), cefuroxima (88,4%, 93,1% y 95%; p<0,001), amoxicilina-clavulánico (87,7%, 88,7% y 93,8%; p<0,001), tobramicina (87%, 93,7% y 93,8%; p<0,001), gentamicina (85,9%, 92,8% y 93%; p<0,001), cefazolina (84,4%, 88,7% y 91,6%; p<0,01), ciprofloxacino (63,8%, 71,4%, 78,4%; p<0,001), norfloxacino (63%, 70,8 y 78,2%; p<0,001), cotrimoxazol (65,2%, 68,6% y 74,9%; p<0,01) y ampicilina (35,5%, 42,5% y 47,8%; p<0,01). (NS= No significativo). CONCLUSIONES: El tratamiento de las infecciones del tracto urinario frecuentemente se inicia de forma empírica. Por este motivo resulta esencial conocer los patrones de sensibilidad de las bacterias potencialmente causantes del cuadro.

OBJECTIVE: For effective empiric therapy of urinary tract infections in the extrahospital setting the susceptibility pattern of uropathogens should be considered. Moreover, the evolution in sensitivity can be observed when comparing with susceptibility patterns in the previous years. This paper presents an analysis of our experience with Escherichia coli. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During 2002 and 1998, 895 and 595 strains of Escherichia coli respectively, isolated from extrahospitalary bacteriurias were collected in ten health centers in Bierzo (León, Spain). Sensitivity to nine most commonly antibiotics used in the clinical practise was determined. The existence of significant differences of susceptibility among years (2002-1998) was analyzed by the chi square test. RESULTS: Escherichia coli accounted for 63.4% of all isolates in 2002 and 50.8% in 1998. The prevalence of in-vitro susceptibilities to antibiotics were (2002-1998): fosfomycin (99.2%-99.3%; p=NS*), cefixime (98.3%-92.9%; p<0.001), cefuroxime (96.5%-94.1%; p<0.05), nitrofurantoin (94.5%-86.9%; p<0.001), amoxycillin-clavulanic acid (93.1%-90.1%; p<0.05), ciprofloxacin (77.1%-81.6%; p<0.05), norfloxacin (75.8%-80.3%; p<0.05), cotrimoxazole (71.5%-73.4%; p=NS*) and ampicillin (44%-41.4%; p=NS*). (*NS= No significant differences). CONCLUSION: The knowledge of the sensitivity of uropathogens to antimicrobians in a specific medium can allow us to use antibiotics rationally and initiate empirical therapy.

OBJETIVO: El tratamiento empírico de las infecciones urinarias extrahospitalarias debe tener en cuenta la sensibilidad de las bacterias potencialmente causantes de las mismas. Además, la comparación con años anteriores permite observar la evolución de la sensibilidad microbiana. Analizamos estos aspectos con respecto a Escherichia coli en nuestro medio. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se analizaron los urocultivos positivos para Escherichia coli obtenidos de muestras enviadas desde atención primaria en El Bierzo (León) durante los años 2002 y 1998, en número de 895 y 595, respectivamente. Se determinó la sensibilidad de este germen a nueve antibióticos de uso frecuente. Se analizó mediante chi cuadrado la existencia de diferencias estadísticamente significativas de sensibilidad en los años estudiados. RESULTADOS: El 63,4% de todos los urocultivos positivos de atención primaria en 2002 y el 50,8% en 1998 resultaron positivos para Escherichia coli. La sensibilidad in vitro en 2002 y 1998, respectivamente, ha sido la siguiente: fosfomicina (99,2%-99,3%; p=NS*), cefixima (98,3%-92,9%; p<0,001), cefuroxima (96,5%-94,1%; p<0,05), nitrofurantoína (94,5%-86,9%; p<0,001), amoxicilina-clavulánico (93,1%-90,1%; p<0,05), ciprofloxacino (77,1%-81,6%; p<0,05), norfloxacino (75,8%-80,3%; p<0,05), cotrimoxazol (71,5%-73,4%; p=NS*) y ampicilina (44%-41,4%; p=NS*). (*NS= No significativo). CONCLUSIONES: El conocimiento de los patrones de sensibilidad de los gérmenes más frecuentemente aislados en muestras de orina en cada zona permite aplicar el tratamiento empírico más adecuado en caso de infección.

This article is a transcription of an electronic symposium in which some active researchers were invited by the Brazilian Society for Neuroscience and Behavior (SBNeC) to discuss the last decade's advances in neurobiology of learning and memory. The way different parts of the brain are recruited during the storage of different kinds of memory (e.g., short-term vs long-term memory, declarative vs procedural memory) and even the property of these divisions were discussed. It was pointed out that the brain does not really store memories, but stores traces of information that are later used to create memories, not always expressing a completely veridical picture of the past experienced reality. To perform this process different parts of the brain act as important nodes of the neural network that encode, store and retrieve the information that will be used to create memories. Some of the brain regions are recognizably active during the activation of short-term working memory (e.g., prefrontal cortex), or the storage of information retrieved as long-term explicit memories (e.g., hippocampus and related cortical areas) or the modulation of the storage of memories related to emotional events (e.g., amygdala). This does not mean that there is a separate neural structure completely supporting the storage of each kind of memory but means that these memories critically depend on the functioning of these neural structures. The current view is that there is no sense in talking about hippocampus-based or amygdala-based memory since this implies that there is a one-to-one correspondence. The present question to be solved is how systems interact in memory. The pertinence of attributing a critical role to cellular processes like synaptic tagging and protein kinase A activation to explain the memory storage processes at the cellular level was also discussed.