Investigation of pathogenic bacteria and analysis of antibiotic sensitivity about children′s wound infection in burn ward

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2019.01.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To analyze the bacterial distribution and antibiotic sensitivity of burn wounds in children with burns.

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2017, a total of 170 inpatients who were met the inclusion criteria in the Department of Burns, First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University were enrolled. The wound secretion was made into bacterial culture and drug sensitivity test, and the distribution characteristics and antibiotic sensitivity of the strain were analyzed.

Results

A total of 138 strains were detected. Among them, Gram-negative bacilli were mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and Escherichia coli, with 39 strains (28.3%), 22 strains (16.0%) and 14 strains (10.1%), respectively; The positive cocci were mainly composed of 25 strains of Staphylococcus aureus (18.1%) and 14 strains of Streptococcus haemolyticus (10.1%). In addition, all of the detected Staphylococcus aureus were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the sensitivity to tigecycline and vancomycin was 100%, and the sensitivity to linezolid and quinupristin-dafoptin was 96.0% and 80.0%, respectively. The drug sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to polymyxin B and minocycline was 100%, and the sensitivity of Acinetobacter baumannii to tigecycline and polymyxin B was 100%.

Conclusions

The top three strains of wound infection in hospitalized patients with burns in First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii. Gram-negative bacilli are predominantly infected and exhibit multi-drug resistance, sensitive to only a few antibiotics. It is recommended to use antibiotics reasonably under the conditions of preventing iatrogenic infections and monitoring bacterial susceptibility.

Key words: Burns, Child, Infection, Bacteria, Sensitivity

Junhui Song, Zhengguo Xia, Qing Huang, Xingzhao Li, Youxin Yu, Yuanhong Xu, Linsen Fang, Qinglian Xu. Investigation of pathogenic bacteria and analysis of antibiotic sensitivity about children′s wound infection in burn ward[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2019, 14(01): 46-51.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhssyxfzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2019.01.009

https://zhssyxfzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V14/I01/46

Figures/Tables 3

References 25

[1]	汤勇, 王良喜, 陈俊杰, 等. 多中心严重烧伤住院患儿流行病学调查分析[J]. 中华烧伤杂志, 2016, 32(10): 599-605.
[2]	程文凤, 赵东旭, 申传安, 等. 14岁以下儿童大面积烧伤的多中心流行病学调查[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2017, 97(6): 462-467.
[3]	柴家科. 实用烧伤外科学[M]. 北京：人民军医出版社, 2014: 426.
[4]	徐庆连, 方林森. 进一步加强烧伤感染综合性防治[J]. 中华烧伤杂志, 2015, 31(1): 9-10.
[5]	周庭银, 倪语星, 胡继红, 等. 临床微生物检验标准化操作[M]. 3版. 上海：上海科学技术出版社, 2015: 139-143.
[6]	Agbenorku P, Amankwa R, Agbenorku M, et al. The Burns Menace: Antibiotics for the Fight against Burns Bacterial Infection, a Systemic Review[J]. Surgical Science, 2016, 7(12): 532-538.
[7]	夏正国, 周贤良, 孔维昌, 等. 安徽省小儿烧伤治疗三级协作网对烧伤患儿治疗效果的影响[J]. 中华烧伤杂志, 2018, 34(3): 143-148.
[8]	Fanos V, Caboni P, Corsello G, et al. Urinary (1)H-NMR and GC-MS metabolomics predicts early and late onset neonatal sepsis[J]. Early Hum Dev, 2014, 90: S78-S83.
[9]	方林森, 胡德林, 王春华, 等. 烧伤病房细菌学调查及耐药性研究[J]. 安徽医科大学学报, 2005, 40(4): 351-352.
[10]	査彬彬, 徐庆连, 唐益忠, 等. 烧伤病房常见病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 安徽医学, 2015, 36(5): 536-540.
[11]	张磊, 付辉, 董肇杨, 等. 2007-2016年小儿烧伤住院患者感染病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 中华灾害救援医学, 2017, 5(12): 685-689.
[12]	Devrim Ï, Kara A, Düzgöl M, et al. Burn-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric burn patients: Time distribution of etiologic agents[J]. Burns, 2017, 43(1): 144-148.
[13]	Dimuzio EE, Healy DP, Durkee P, et al. Trends in bacterial wound isolates and antimicrobial susceptibility in a pediatric burn hospital[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2014, 35(5): e304-311.
[14]	陈如俊, 叶胜捷, 张文振. 小儿烧伤患者感染细菌学调查与感染情况分析[J/CD]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2009, 4(1): 48-52.
[15]	Siddiqui NU, Qamar FN, Jurair H, et al. Multi-drug resistant gram negative infections and use of intravenous polymyxin B in critically ill children of developing country: retrospective cohort study[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2014, 14: 626.
[16]	张思敏, 徐俊, 李俊华. 乌司他丁增强抗生素治疗儿童细菌致脓毒血症疗效的机制研究[J]. 中国生化药物杂志, 2014, 34(2): 125-127.
[17]	Rostami S, Farajzadeh Sheikh A, Shoja S, et al. Investigating of four main carbapenem-resistance mechanisms in high-level carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn patients[J]. J Chin Med Assoc, 2018, 81(2): 127-132.
[18]	Yin S, Chen P, You B, et al. Molecular Typing and Carbapenem Resistance Mechanisms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolated From a Chinese Burn Center From 2011 to 2016[J]. Front Microbiol, 2018, 29(9): 1135.
[19]	Matsushima A, Kuroki Y, Nakajima S, et al. Low Level of TSST-1 Antibody in Burn Patients With Toxic Shock Syndrome Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2015, 36(3): e120-124.
[20]	Horino T, Sato F, Hosaka Y, et al. Predictive factors for metastatic infection in patients with bacteremia caused by methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus[J]. Am J Med Sci, 2015, 349(1): 24-28.
[21]	Keen EF 3rd, Robinson BJ, Hospenthal DR, et al. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms recovered at a military burn center[J]. Burns, 2010, 36(6): 819-825.
[22]	孙伟晶, 陈向军, 姚兴伟. 北京军区某医院10年间儿童烧伤创面病原茵调查分析[J]. 中华烧伤杂志, 2013, 29(1): 24-26.
[23]	Atilla A, Tomak L, Katranc AO, et al. Mortality risk factors in burn care units considering the clinical significance of acinetobacter infections[J]. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2015, 21(1): 34-38.
[24]	戴嘉喜, 李琳, 许乐, 等. 541例烧伤感染住院患儿病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 中华烧伤杂志, 2016, 32(11): 670-675.
[25]	Tekin R, Dal T, Bozkurt F, et al. Risk factors for nosocomial burn wound infection caused by multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2014, 35(1): e73-80.

病原菌		株数	构成比(%)
革兰阳性球菌		48	34.8
?	金黄色葡萄球菌	25	18.1
?	溶血葡萄球菌	14	10.1
?	表皮葡萄球菌	4	2.9
?	粪肠球菌	3	2.2
?	其他葡萄球菌	2	1.4
革兰阴性杆菌		90	65.2
?	铜绿假单胞菌	39	28.3
?	鲍曼不动杆菌	22	16.0
?	大肠埃希菌	14	10.1
?	肺炎克雷伯菌	6	4.3
?	阴沟肠杆菌	4	2.9
?	其他革兰氏阴性菌	5	3.6
合计		138	100

病原菌		株数	构成比(%)
革兰阳性球菌		48	34.8
?	金黄色葡萄球菌	25	18.1
?	溶血葡萄球菌	14	10.1
?	表皮葡萄球菌	4	2.9
?	粪肠球菌	3	2.2
?	其他葡萄球菌	2	1.4
革兰阴性杆菌		90	65.2
?	铜绿假单胞菌	39	28.3
?	鲍曼不动杆菌	22	16.0
?	大肠埃希菌	14	10.1
?	肺炎克雷伯菌	6	4.3
?	阴沟肠杆菌	4	2.9
?	其他革兰氏阴性菌	5	3.6
合计		138	100

抗生素	金黄色葡萄球菌		表皮葡萄球菌		溶血葡萄球菌
抗生素	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)
头孢曲松钠	18/0	0	4/0	0	10/0	0
克林霉素	25/3	12.0	4/2	50.0	14/2	14.3
头孢唑林	25/1	4.0	4/0	0	14/0	0
红霉素	25/1	4.0	4/1	25.0	14/10	0
亚胺培南	?	?	?	?	6/0	0
利奈唑胺	25/24	96.0	4/4	100.0	14/14	100.0
苯唑青霉素	25/2	8.0	4/0	0	14/0	0
青霉素	25/0	0	4/0	0	14/0	0
派拉西林钠他唑巴坦钠	19/1	5.3	?	?	?	?
利福平	25/9	36.0	4/3	75.0	14/9	64.3
替加环素	7/7	100.0	1/1	100.0	?	?
喹努普汀-达福普汀	25/20	80.0	4/4	100.0	14/14	100.0
复方新诺明	25/14	56.0	4/2	50.0	14/2	14.3
万古霉素	25/25	100.0	4/4	100.0	14/14	100.0

抗生素	金黄色葡萄球菌		表皮葡萄球菌		溶血葡萄球菌
抗生素	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)
头孢曲松钠	18/0	0	4/0	0	10/0	0
克林霉素	25/3	12.0	4/2	50.0	14/2	14.3
头孢唑林	25/1	4.0	4/0	0	14/0	0
红霉素	25/1	4.0	4/1	25.0	14/10	0
亚胺培南	?	?	?	?	6/0	0
利奈唑胺	25/24	96.0	4/4	100.0	14/14	100.0
苯唑青霉素	25/2	8.0	4/0	0	14/0	0
青霉素	25/0	0	4/0	0	14/0	0
派拉西林钠他唑巴坦钠	19/1	5.3	?	?	?	?
利福平	25/9	36.0	4/3	75.0	14/9	64.3
替加环素	7/7	100.0	1/1	100.0	?	?
喹努普汀-达福普汀	25/20	80.0	4/4	100.0	14/14	100.0
复方新诺明	25/14	56.0	4/2	50.0	14/2	14.3
万古霉素	25/25	100.0	4/4	100.0	14/14	100.0

抗生素	铜绿假单胞菌		鲍曼不动杆菌		肺炎克雷伯菌		大肠埃希菌
抗生素	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)	受检/敏感菌株数	敏感率(%)
头孢曲松钠	39/3	7.7	22/0	0	6/0	0	14/0	7.1
头孢他啶	39/9	23.1	22/0	0	6/0	0	14/4	28.6
头孢唑林	39/0	0	22/0	0	6/0	0	14/1	7.1
头孢吡肟	39/10	25.6	22/0	0	6/0	0	14/2	14.3
庆大霉素	39/11	28.2	22/0	0	6/1	16.7	14/1	7.1
亚胺培南	39/18	46.2	17/0	0	6/4	66.7	14/14	100.0
派拉西林钠他唑巴坦钠	39/5	12.8	8/0	0	6/3	50.0	14/12	85.7
复方新诺明	39/3	7.7	22/0	0	6/1	16.7	14/1	7.1
美罗培南	39/12	30.8	14/0	0	4/2	50.0	9/7	77.8
厄他培南	?	?	?	?	?	?	7/7	100.0
替加环素	?	?	13/13	100.0	4/4	100.0	9/8	88.9
多粘菌素B	18/18	100.0	7/7	100.0	4/4	100.0	?	?
米诺环素	4/4	100.0	14/11	78.6	4/2	50.0	9/8	88.9
头孢哌酮钠舒巴坦钠	30/8	26.7	14/1	7.1	4/2	50.0	9/8	88.9
磷霉素	26/8	30.8	?	?	?	?	?	?

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export