Bacteriological cultures on admission of the burn patient: To do or not to do, that's the question.

INTRODUCTION

In many burn centers, routine bacteriological swabs are taken from the nose, throat, perineum, and the burn wound on admission, to check for the presence of microorganisms that require specific measures in terms of isolation or initial treatment. According to the Dutch policy of "search and destroy," for example, patients infected by multiresistant bacteria have to be strictly isolated, and patients colonized with β-hemolytic Streptococcus pyogenes must receive antibiotic therapy to prevent failed primary closure or loss of skin grafts. In this respect, the role of bacteria cultured on admission in later infectious complications is investigated. The aim of this study is to assess systematic initial bacteriological surveillance, based on an extensive Dutch data collection.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

A total of 3271 patients primarily admitted to the Rotterdam Burn Centre between January 1987 and August 2010 with complete bacteriological swabs from nose, throat, perineum, and the burn wounds were included. For this study, microbiological surveillance was aimed at identifying resistant microorganisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), multiresistant Acinetobacter, and multiresistant Pseudomonas, as well as Lancefield A β-hemolytic streptococci (HSA), in any surveillance culture. The cultures were labeled as "normal flora or non-suspicious" in the case of no growth or a typical low level of bacterial colonization in the nose, throat, and perineum and no overgrowth of one type of microorganism. Further, the blood cultures of 195 patients (6.0%) who became septic in a later phase were compared with cultures taken on admission to identify the role of the initially present microorganisms. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0.

RESULTS

Almost 61% of the wound cultures are "non-suspicious" on admission. MRSA was cultured in 0.4% (14/3271) on admission; 12 out of these 14 patients (85.7%) were repatriated. Overall, 9.3% (12/129) of the repatriated patients were colonized with MRSA. Multiresistant Acinetobacter or Pseudomonas was detected in 0.3% (11/3271 and 10/3271, respectively). In total, 18 of the 129 repatriated patients (14%) had one or more resistant bacteria in cultures taken within the first 24h after admission in our burn center. On admission, S. pyogenes was found in 3.6% of patients (117/3271), predominantly in children up to 10 years of age (81/1065=7.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Resistant bacteria or microorganisms that impede wound healing and cause major infections are found only in few bacteriological specimens obtained on admission of patients with burn wounds. However, the consequences in terms of isolation and therapy are of great importance, justifying the rationale of a systematic bacteriological surveillance on admission. Patients who have been hospitalized for several days in a hospital abroad and are repatriated show more colonization at admission in our burn center. The microorganisms identified are not only (multi)resistant bacteria, showing that a hospital environment can quickly become a source of contamination. These patients should receive special attention for resistant bacteria. HSA contamination is observed more frequently in younger children. Bacteria present at admission do not seem to play a predominant role in predicting later sepsis.