Observational study identifies burn wound bacteria and their antibiotic resistance in hospitalized cases, suggesting ongoing monitoring is necessary.
Background: Burn wound infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in developing countries, due to increased susceptibility to microbial colonization and rising antimicrobial resistance. Objectives: To identify the bacteriological profile of burn wound isolates and determine their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns at a tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted over 9 months and included 50 patients with second- and third-degree burns. A consecutive sampling method was used. Wound swabs were collected aseptically and processed using the standard microbiological techniques. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method following the clinical and laboratory standards institute guidelines. Data were analyzed using the descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results: Of the 50 samples, 39 (77.1%) were culture-positive. Females comprised 56% of the participants and the mean age was 35 ± 3.1 years. Culture positivity was significantly associated with age ≤35 years ( P = 0.025) and female gender ( P < 0.001). Gram-negative organisms predominated, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (31.3%) as the most common isolate, followed by Staphylococcus aureus (28.1%). Gram-negative isolates (imipenem and meropenem) showed high sensitivity to carbapenems and colistin, while S . aureus was uniformly sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid but resistant to penicillin. Conclusion: Gram-negative predominance and emerging resistance underscore the need for regular surveillance and local antibiograms to guide empirical therapy and improve the outcomes in burn patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: