4.4 Article

Comparison of pathogens and antibiotic resistance of burn patients in the burn ICU or in the common burn ward

Journal

BURNS
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 402-407

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.07.010

Keywords

Burn; Infection; Antibiotic resistance

Funding

  1. Specific Project of Health, Ministry of Health of China [201202002]
  2. CPLA Scientific Research Fund [BWS11J039]
  3. Key Project on Advanced Clinical Technology for Military Hospital [2010gxjs068]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study aims to compare pathogens and their antibiotic resistances of burn patients from burn intensive care unit (ICU) or common burn ward. Of 2395 clinical samples from 63 patients in burn ICU, pathogens were detected in 1621 samples, in which 1203 strains (74.2%) were Gram negative bacteria, 248 strains (15.3%) were Gram positive bacteria, 170 strains (10.5%) were fungi. Top-4 microorganisms isolated from patients in burn ICU were Bauman's Acinetobacter (557, 34.4%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (287.17.7%), Staphylococcus aureus (199, 12.3%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (171, 10.5%). Of 512 clinical samples from 235 patients in common burn units, pathogens were detected in 373 samples, in which 189 (50.6%) strains were Gram negative bacteria, 150 strains (40.2%) were Gram positive bacteria, 34 strains (9.2%) were fungi. Top-4 microorganisms isolated from patients in common burn units were S. aureus (103, 27.6%), P. aeruginosa (46, 12.3%), K. pneumoniae (38,10.2%) and Escherichia coli (32, 8.6%). Antibiotic resistance rates of pathogens isolated from clinical samples of burn patients from ICU was significantly higher than those from common units. Conclusions: Pathogens and their antibiotic resistances are significantly different between burn ICU and common burn units. This finding has great implication for infection control in burn patients. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available