Evaluating First Positive Cultures in Burns: Rethinking Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Choices.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Pouriya Sadeghighazichaki, Alan D Rogers, Marion Elligsen, Rimona Natanson, Stephanie A Mason, Philip Lam, David L Wallace
{"title":"Evaluating First Positive Cultures in Burns: Rethinking Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Choices.","authors":"Pouriya Sadeghighazichaki, Alan D Rogers, Marion Elligsen, Rimona Natanson, Stephanie A Mason, Philip Lam, David L Wallace","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/iraf229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Infection is a nearly universal complication among patients with major burns, yet guidance on early empiric antibiotic therapy remains limited. Broad-spectrum antibiotics are commonly initiated in the early phase of care but carry risks of antimicrobial resistance and drug toxicities. This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the microbiological profiles and antibiotic prescribing patterns associated with first positive cultures (FPCs) in patients with major burn injuries admitted to Canada's highest-volume adult burn center between January 1, 2018 and May 1, 2023. A total of 114 patients with ≥ 20% total body surface area burns were included. Among 145 FPCs, the most commonly cultured sites were respiratory (55%) and wound (30%). The most frequently identified organisms were methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (19%), Haemophilus influenzae (15%), Enterobacter cloacae complex (8%), Escherichia coli (7%), methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) (7%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6%). Notably, only 3% of patients who screened negative for MRSA on admission developed MRSA-positive cultures. Antibiotic therapy was initiated in 99% of patients with FPCs, most commonly with piperacillin-tazobactam (41%), vancomycin (16%), and cefazolin (14%). Dual therapy, typically piperacillin-tazobactam plus vancomycin, was used in 13% of cases. Sensitivity data demonstrated that meropenem (90%) and the combination of ciprofloxacin with cefazolin (83%) covered the highest proportion of isolates. While piperacillin-tazobactam remains effective for early empiric use, our findings indicate that targeted alternatives-such as reserving meropenem for select cases or using ciprofloxacin plus cefazolin in appropriate patients-could provide comparable coverage while adhering to antimicrobial stewardship principles. A negative MRSA screening swab on admission demonstrated a high negative predictive value (~97%), supporting the withholding of vancomycin in screen-negative patients. This study supports evidence-based antibiotic use in patients with burn injuries and underscores the need for local, data-driven stewardship.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":"780-787"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/iraf229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Infection is a nearly universal complication among patients with major burns, yet guidance on early empiric antibiotic therapy remains limited. Broad-spectrum antibiotics are commonly initiated in the early phase of care but carry risks of antimicrobial resistance and drug toxicities. This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the microbiological profiles and antibiotic prescribing patterns associated with first positive cultures (FPCs) in patients with major burn injuries admitted to Canada's highest-volume adult burn center between January 1, 2018 and May 1, 2023. A total of 114 patients with ≥ 20% total body surface area burns were included. Among 145 FPCs, the most commonly cultured sites were respiratory (55%) and wound (30%). The most frequently identified organisms were methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (19%), Haemophilus influenzae (15%), Enterobacter cloacae complex (8%), Escherichia coli (7%), methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) (7%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6%). Notably, only 3% of patients who screened negative for MRSA on admission developed MRSA-positive cultures. Antibiotic therapy was initiated in 99% of patients with FPCs, most commonly with piperacillin-tazobactam (41%), vancomycin (16%), and cefazolin (14%). Dual therapy, typically piperacillin-tazobactam plus vancomycin, was used in 13% of cases. Sensitivity data demonstrated that meropenem (90%) and the combination of ciprofloxacin with cefazolin (83%) covered the highest proportion of isolates. While piperacillin-tazobactam remains effective for early empiric use, our findings indicate that targeted alternatives-such as reserving meropenem for select cases or using ciprofloxacin plus cefazolin in appropriate patients-could provide comparable coverage while adhering to antimicrobial stewardship principles. A negative MRSA screening swab on admission demonstrated a high negative predictive value (~97%), supporting the withholding of vancomycin in screen-negative patients. This study supports evidence-based antibiotic use in patients with burn injuries and underscores the need for local, data-driven stewardship.

评估烧伤首次阳性培养:重新思考广谱抗生素的选择。
感染是严重烧伤患者中几乎普遍的并发症,然而早期经验性抗生素治疗的指导仍然有限。广谱抗生素通常在护理的早期阶段开始使用,但存在抗微生物药物耐药性和药物毒性的风险。这项单中心回顾性研究评估了2018年1月1日至2023年5月1日期间加拿大容量最大的成人烧伤中心收治的主要烧伤患者的微生物谱和抗生素处方模式与首次阳性培养(FPCs)相关。共纳入114例体表面积烧伤≥20%的患者。145个fpc中,最常见的培养部位是呼吸道(55%)和伤口(30%)。最常见的微生物是甲氧西林敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌(19%)、流感嗜血杆菌(15%)、阴沟肠杆菌复合菌(8%)、大肠杆菌(7%)、MRSA(7%)和铜绿假单胞菌(6%)。值得注意的是,在入院时MRSA筛查为阴性的患者中,只有3%的人培养出了MRSA阳性。99%的FPCs患者开始了抗生素治疗,最常见的是哌拉西林-他唑巴坦(41%)、万古霉素(16%)和头孢唑林(14%)。双重治疗,典型的哌拉西林-他唑巴坦加万古霉素,在13%的病例中使用。敏感性数据显示,美罗培南(90%)和环丙沙星与头孢唑林联用(83%)所占比例最高。虽然哌拉西林-他唑巴坦在早期的实验性使用中仍然有效,但我们的研究结果表明,有针对性的替代方案——如将美罗培南保留给特定病例使用,或在适当的患者中使用环丙沙星加头孢唑林——在遵守抗菌药物管理原则的同时,可以提供相当的覆盖范围。入院时MRSA筛查拭子阴性显示高阴性预测值(~97%),支持筛查阴性患者保留万古霉素。这项研究支持在烧伤患者中使用循证抗生素,并强调了当地数据驱动管理的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
535
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书