|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 24
| Issue : 1 | Page : 69-73 |
|
An appraisal of antibiotic sensitivity pattern and drug utilization in burn patients
Janki Raj Chauhan1, Sarvajeet Khare1, Prem Lal1, Vijayanarayana Kunhikatta1, Girish Thunga1, Sreedharan Nair1, Narayanthu Chellappanpilla Sreekumar2
1 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
| Date of Web Publication | 12-Dec-2016 |
Correspondence Address:
Vijayanarayana Kunhikatta
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal - 576 104, Udupi, Karnataka
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0971-653X.195534
Aim: To analyze the antibiotic sensitivity and resistance pattern and antibiotic consumption in defined daily dose (DDD)/100 bed days (BD). Materials and Methods: Burns patients admitted from January 2013 to December 2013 were identified retrospectively from medical record department registry using the International Classification of Diseases-(ICD) Codes T 30.1-39.9. Patient demographics, total body surface area (TBSA) of burn, treatment chart, hospitalization days, and antibiotic sensitivity/resistance profile were recorded. Cumulative sensitivity/resistance pattern of isolated microorganisms against various antibiotics was calculated (in percentage) from culture sensitivity reports. Total use of antibiotics in burn patients was calculated as DDD/100 BD using antibiotic consumption calculator-WHO ABC Calc version 3.1. Results: Of total 159 burn patients, the main cause of burns in these patients was thermal (81.8%). Cefoperazone-sulbactam (54.7%) was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic followed by amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (34%). Totally, 82 bacterial isolates were obtained, among which Pseudomonas aeruginosa (31.6%) was the most common organism. P. aeruginosa was sensitive to rifampicin and erythromycin but resistant to clindamycin. The DDD/100 BD was highest for parenteral cefoperazone (40.21). Conclusion: Proper antibiogram and DDD will facilitate conceptualizing and developing drug policies for improved patient outcomes in burns. Keywords: Antibiotic sensitivity, burns, defined daily dose in burns, drug utilization evaluation
How to cite this article:
Chauhan JR, Khare S, Lal P, Kunhikatta V, Thunga G, Nair S, Sreekumar NC. An appraisal of antibiotic sensitivity pattern and drug utilization in burn patients. Indian J Burns 2016;24:69-73 |
How to cite this URL:
Chauhan JR, Khare S, Lal P, Kunhikatta V, Thunga G, Nair S, Sreekumar NC. An appraisal of antibiotic sensitivity pattern and drug utilization in burn patients. Indian J Burns [serial online] 2016 [cited 2023 Jun 9];24:69-73. Available from: https://www.ijburns.com/text.asp?2016/24/1/69/195534 |
| Introduction | |  |
Burns are tissue injuries caused by heat, electricity, sunlight, chemicals, radiation, or friction.[1] Burns are classified according to depth and severity based on the body surface area. Depth is characterized by the first-, second-, and third-degree burns. Severity is based on total body surface area (TBSA).[2] The antimicrobial resistance in burn wound pathogens is a challenge for clinicians chiefly due to the emergence of various resistant bacterial strains. An infection in burn wounds is the most common cause of morbidity and results in 75% mortality.[3]
| Materials and Methods | | |
A retrospective observational study on 159 patients with various degrees of burns was conducted; burn patients admitted during January 2013 through December 2013 were analyzed retrospectively from their medical records. Patients' demographics, treatment chart, and antibiotic sensitivity and resistance profile were recorded in a specially prepared case record form. Nominal data were expressed in frequency and percentage. The data were analyzed as follows: Cumulative sensitivity and resistance pattern of isolated microorganisms against various antibiotics were calculated from culture sensitivity report and reported as the percentage. Total use of antibiotics was calculated as defined daily dose (DDD)/100 bed days (BD) using the Antibiotic Consumption Calculator-WHO ABC Calc version 3.1 (WHO Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology, Oslo, Norway). Data entry and statistical analysis were carried out using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corporation, New York, USA) and MS Excel.
| Results | | |
Thermal burns (81.8%) were the main cause of burns in the study population. Patients' surface area was classified based on TBSA of which the median was 23% TBSA.
Treatment of burn wound patients: Cefoperazone-sulbactam (54.7%) was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic followed by amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (34%).
Antimicrobial sensitivity/resistance pattern and antibiotic utilization pattern in burned patients
A total of 12 microorganisms were isolated from the 82 positive cultures obtained. The most common microorganism isolated was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (31.6%) followed by Klebsiella Pneumoniae (19.4%), Acinetobacter (12.3%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (10.3%) [Table 1].
The sensitivity/resistance profiles of the isolated organisms
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
it was 100% sensitive to tetracycline, imipenem, linezolid, rifampicin, and teicoplanin followed by colistin (92.3%), least sensitive to aztreonam (3.7%), and highly resistant (100%) to clindamycin, cloxacillin, ticarcillin-tazobactam, and erythromycin.
Klebsiella Pneumoniae
It was highly sensitive to vancomycin (100%) and resistant to amoxicillin, ampicillin, cefepime, and ticarcillin-tazobactam (100%).
Acinetobacter
It was 100% sensitive to colistin followed by cefoperazone-sulbactam (92.8%) and netilmicin (81.8%) and 100% resistant to amoxicillin, ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, chloramphenicol, piperacillin, tobramycin, cefepime, and ticarcillin-tazobactam.
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
It was 100% sensitive toward colistin, linezolid, rifampicin, teicoplanin, and vancomycin and 100% resistant to amoxicillin, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, piperacillin-tazobactam, and erythromycin.
Enterobacter
It was 100% sensitive to amikacin, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, netilmicin, cefoperazone- sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, and imipenem but 100% resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, cotrimoxazole, gentamicin, aztreonam, and colistin.
Proteus mirabilis
It was 100% sensitive to cefepime, colistin, imipenem, and cefpirome followed by cefoperazone-sulbactam (85.7%). It was 100% resistance toward amoxicillin, amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, cotrimoxazole, gentamicin, netilmicin, piperacillin, and tobramycin.
Escherichia coli
It was 100% sensitive to piperacillin-tazobactam, colistin, imipenem, and tetracycline. It was resistant (100%) to amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, piperacillin, tobramycin, aztreonam, and cefepime.
Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus
It was highly sensitive (100%) to amikacin, ceftriaxone, colistin, tetracycline, linezolid, teicoplanin, and vancomycin and resistant (100%) to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, erythromycin, cloxacillin.
Enterococcus
It was highly sensitive (100%) to imipenem, tetracycline, linezolid, teicoplanin, vancomycin and least sensitive to chloramphenicol, ampicillin, and gentamicin. Complete resistance (100%) to amoxicillin, amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefazolin, ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, netilmicin, tobramycin, aztreonam, piperacillin-tazobactam, and erythromycin was observed.
Citrobacter
The species showed complete sensitivity (100%) toward ceftriaxone, cotrimoxazole, aztreonam, cefoperazone-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem and showed complete resistance (100%) to amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and netilmicin.
Klebsiella oxytoca
It was highly sensitive (100%) toward amikacin, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, netilmicin, cefoperazone-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem. However, it was resistant (100%) to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, cotrimoxazole, gentamicin, aztreonam, colistin.
Proteus vulgaris
It was 100% sensitive toward aztreonam, cefoperazone-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, and imipenem and 100% resistant toward amoxicillin, amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefazolin, ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, gentamicin, and netilmicin.
Total antibiotic consumption was technically quantified in DDD/100 BD. A total of 486.8 units of 31 different antimicrobial agents were used to treat burn wound infections in 2013. The utilization pattern of antibiotics (in DDD/100 BD) is shown in [Table 2] and [Table 3].
Parenteral cefoperazone (40.21) was the highest followed by netilmicin (33.94) and amoxicillin-clavulanate (18.48). Consumption of parenteral cefuroxime (0.04) was least.
| Discussion | | |
A retrospective, observational study included 159 burns patients from the year 2013. Data from their medical records were collected and analyzed and thermal burns being the most common. Sepsis accounted for 50% of deaths in our study, echoing the results of a study by Chawla et al., which highlighted septicemic shock, primary shock, and oligemic shock as the most common causes of death in burn patients.[4]
Twelve different microorganisms were isolated from burn wound patients. Of a total of 82 positive microbial growth, the most common organism causing burn wound infection was P. aeruginosa (31.6%) followed by Klebsiella Pneumoniae (19.4%), Acinetobacter (12.3%), and MRSA (10.3%) which is similar to the study carried out by Saaiq which had a total of 95 positive microbial growths and the highest isolate being P. aeruginosa (35.29%) followed by K. pneumoniae (20.58%), methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (18.62%), Proteus mirabilis (9.80%), Escherichia coli (6.86%), and the least being Acinetobacter (6.86%).[5]
P. aeruginosa, being the most frequent isolate, was highly sensitive to imipenem (100%) and 60% resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam, which was reported to possess a similar sensitivity/resistance profile in a study by Dash et al., showing P. aeruginosa least resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem.[6]
P. aeruginosa is the main organism causing nosocomial infections, thus being the most frequent isolate with the highest resistance profile in our study population. A similar result reported by Ozer et al. showed that P. aeruginosa was the cause of nosocomial infection.[7]
P. aeruginosa, resistant to a wide range of antibiotics, produces plasmid-mediated beta-lactamases (e.g., cephalosporinases hydrolyze cephalosporins more readily than penicillins) that provides a robust mechanism of resistance to cephalosporins (81.2%).[8]
Resistance to aminoglycosides in P. aeruginosa (75.03%) includes plasmid-mediated resistance, due to the presence of aminoglycoside modifying enzymes, which is often observed during nosocomial outbreaks of the infection. P. aeruginosa can also modify aminoglycosides by acetylation, phosphorylation, or adenylation.[8]
Proteus vulgaris is the least common organism isolated (0.6%), which is highly resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin (100%), which correlates to a study carried out by Sewunet where P. vulgaris had high resistance to amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin.[9]
Antibiotic utilization pattern showed parenteral cefoperazone, a third generation cephalosporin, having the highest consumption (40.21) followed by netilmicin (33.94), amoxicillin-clavulanate (18.48). Consumption of parenteral cefuroxime (0.04) was least.
Overall consumption of the third-generation cephalosporins was more than the use of first- and second-generation cephalosporins. This was followed by the use of aminoglycosides. Of the 361 prescriptions included in the present study, the average number of antibiotics prescribed was 2.5, ranging from 1 to 8 antimicrobials, which comparable to a study by Padwal et al., in which the most prescribed group of antibiotics was found to be cephalosporins, especially third-generation cephalosporins. The average number of drugs prescribed was 5.17 with a range of 2-9 drugs and the number of prescriptions was 242 in a period of 6 months.[10]
Our study population was similar to the study done by Theron and Nel, where they concluded the beneficial role of the third-generation cephalosporins in the management of extensive burn wound sepsis.[11]
Most common antibiotics used to prevent eye infections include fluoroquinolones, mainly ciprofloxacin, which lubricates the eye and prevent infections.
Limitations of the study: The study being retrospective, use of topical antibiotics could not be quantified. Further, the comorbidities in patients, etc., were not considered.
| Conclusion | | |
Antibiotic use requires the physicians to coordinate with a multidisciplinary healthcare team comprising of clinical pharmacists, microbiologists and nurses for assuring optimum antimicrobial use in burns patients. Infections are a serious problem in burns, with highly resistant strains of P. aeruginosa emerging as the commonest organism causing infection. Hospitals should constitute a surveillance system that should record burn wound infections along with resistance/sensitivity patterns. This study should be repeated periodically, and an antibiogram should be developed based on which the hospital should formulate an effective antibiotic policy.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Herndon D. Prevention of burn injuries. Total Burn Care. 4 th ed. Edinburgh: Saunders; 2012. p. 46.  |
| 2. | |
| 3. | Sedat Y, Tarik Z, Nurkan T, Targut N, Yusuf Z, Gokhan M, et al. Bacteriological profile and antibiotic resistance. J Burn Wound Rehabil 2005; 26:488. |
| 4. | Chawla R, Chanana A, Rai H, Singh H. Clinico-pathological profile in deaths due to burns. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2011;33:14-5. |
| 5. | Saaiq M. Epidemiology and outcome of childhood electrical burn injuries at Pakistan institute of medical sciences Islamabad, Pakistan. J Burn Care Res 2014;1:174-80. |
| 6. | Dash M, Misra P, Routaray S. Bacteriological profile and antibiogram of aerobic burnwound isolates in a tertiary care hospital, Odisha, India. Int J Med Med Sci 2013;3:460-3. |
| 7. | Ozer B, Tatman-Otkun M, Memis D, Otkun M. Nosocomial infections and risk factors in intensive care unit of a university hospital in Turkey. Cent Eur J Med 2009;5:203-8. |
| 8. | Basavraj N, Namdev MS. Antimicrobial resistance in P. aeruginosa — A review. J Med Educ Res 2012;2:1-6. |
| 9. | Sewunet T, Demissie Y, Mihret A, Abebe T. Bacterial profile and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of isolates among burn patients at Yekatit 12 Hospital Burn Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci 2013;23:209-16. |
| 10. | Padwal S, Motghare V, Kulkarni M, Jadhav R, Deshmukh V. Drug utilization in burn patients admitted in a wards of a rural tertiary care teaching hospital. Int J Pharmacol Ther 2013;3:20-6. Available from: http://www.earthjournals.org/ijpt_244.pdf. [Last cited on 2015 Mar 24]. |
| 11. | Theron EJ, Nel CJ. Treatment of septic burns with a third-generation cephalosporin (cefatriaxon). S Afr Med J 1983;64:816-7. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|
Search Pubmed for