Volume 7, Issue 4 (Autumn 2018)
Arch Hyg Sci 2018, 7(4): 282-287 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shams S, Ghorbanalizadgan M, Minoii S, Shojaei S. Evaluation of Bacterial Infection of Burn Wounds in a Burn Center, Qom, Iran. Arch Hyg Sci 2018; 7 (4) :282-287
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-335-en.html
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-335-en.html
1- Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, IR Iran
2- Department of Bacteriology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Baqiyatallah University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Burn Center, Nekoei Hospital Qom, Iran.
2- Department of Bacteriology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Baqiyatallah University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Burn Center, Nekoei Hospital Qom, Iran.
Full-Text [PDF 401 kb]
(973 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (3660 Views)
Skin is an essential component of the nonspecific immune system that protects the host against pathogens (1-3).
Intact skin is a physical barrier and protects human from pathogenic microorganisms (4).
Contact with fire, hot water, steam, electricity, flame, radiation, or caustic chemicals can cause skin damages and interrupt the immune status, resulting loss of a competent antimicrobial barrier (5,6).
Burns has always been a major problem in many parts of the world and it is estimated that 75% of the total deaths from burns caused by wound infection. Physical damages can destroy the body's defenses that normally prevents invasion of microorganisms (6-10).
Due to disorder of the skin's mechanical integrity and suppresses the immune system, burn patients are more prone to different infections .In these patients, microorganisms especially bacteria and fungi rapidly colonize skin wound surface after damaging. Then, systemic spread may occur which can lead to inflammatory responses and life-threatening complications (11).
Despite the considerable progress of antimicrobial therapy in the last 60 years, the bacterial infections in the burn patients are increasing (12). Although the risk of infection in burns is well known, but in recent decades antibiotic-resistant isolated strains of burn patients have been reported. Thus, the distribution of drug-resistant bacteria has become a critical problem in different parts of the hospitals (13).
The prevention of infection in burn patients is an important challenge because continuous management of the burn wound must be performed (14). In uncontrolled or untreated cases, invasive infections may result in the death of the burned patient (Church, Elsayed et al. 2006).
In a burn wound, the combinations of patient factors (such as age, burn depth, and immune system) and virulence factors related to microorganisms (such as enzymes, toxins, etc.) had an important role in the infection of burn site. Different microorganisms can cause burn infection, but Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Enterococcus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, and Enterobacter spp. are the most common Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens identified in burn patients (11,15).
Aims of the study:
The aim of this study was to identify the most isolated bacterial agents from burn patients refereed to a burn center of Qom city and the evaluation of the antibiotic resistance of the isolates.
Sample collection and isolation of the bacteria
This study was a cross-sectional study that conducted among 793 patients admitted to Nekoei Burn Center of Qom, Iran, during a three-year period (from May 2012 to November 2014). After obtaining informed consent, sampling was done by wet sterile cotton swabs. The swabs were putted in 5cc of Brain Heart Infusion broth (Merck, Germany) and were immediately sent to the microbiology laboratory. The BHI tubes were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours and next sub-cultured on blood agar, MacConkey agar, mannitol salt agar, and nutrient agar media (Merck, Germany) at 37°C for 18-24 hours.
Identification of isolated bacteria
Preliminary identification of the bacterial isolates was done using conventional methods e.g. Gram staining, colony morphology, pigment production, and haemolysis pattern on blood agar, DNase, coagulase, oxidase and catalase tests. Conventional biochemical tests for Gram-negative bacteria e.g. TSI (Triple Sugar Iron), SIM (Sulfide, Indole, Motility), citrate, MR-VP and oxidation-fermentation test of the isolates were also performed to confirm the genus and species of isolates.
Antimicrobial resistance assay
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria was evaluated according to CLSI guideline (16). The antibiogram test of the isolates was carried out using antibiotic disks (PadtanTeb, Iran), including amikacin (30µg), ceftizoxime (30µg), ticarcillin (75µg), ceftriaxone (30µg), cefotaxime (30 mg), ciprofloxacin (5µg), cephalothin (30µg), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or SXT (25μg), imipenem (10µg), gentamicin (10µg), ampicillin (10µg), piperacillin (10µg), nalidixic acid (30µg), carbenicillin (100 µg), meropenem (10µg), cephalexin (30µg), oxacillin (1µg), penicillin (10U), vancomycin (30µg), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (30µg), and tetracycline (30µg) on muller-hinton agar (Merck, Germany) at 37°C for 24h.
In this study, 793 patients were included which 84% and 16% of them were male and female, respectively. The highest burns equal to 60% was related to the male with an age range of 19-45 years. The distribution of various age groups is shown in Table 1.
Table 1) The percent of various age groups under study
The lowest and highest degrees totally, during 3 years 45 patients (19.82%) were positive culture. Of the total 301 patients admitted in 2012, 16 cases (5.32%) of them had burn wound infection. In 2013, from 331 patients, 11 cases (3.32%) and in 2014 of 161 cases, 18 patients (11.18%) were identified as positive culture (Fig. 1).
Figure 1) Percent of wound infection in three years.
The most common bacterial isolates isolated were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (66%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (16%), Staphylococcus aureus (12%) and Klebsiella spp. (6%) (Fig. 2).
Figure 2) The frequency of the most common bacterial isolates from burn wound infections
Infectious diseases are major causes of human mortality. Today drug resistance of the microorganisms has been reported as a serious threat in health systems around the world (17). The incorrect use of first-line antibacterial treatment has led to detection of the resistant bacteria. With failure of therapy, other options may be used which are more toxic, less effective and often expensive for patients. The studies have shown that the hospitalization and the risk of death in patients with resistant infections are progressively greater (18,19).
This project was focused to determine the prevalence of the bacterial pathogens causing infection in burn wounds and to detect antibacterial resistance in the isolated species.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was dominant species in 793 patients studied, followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella spp. In performed study by Rezaei et al. shown that P. aeruginosa and Klebsiella were the most common Gram-negative bacteria and S. aureus was the most common Gram-positive organism recovered from the burn patients (20). In another work in Ghana, the predominant Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms isolated were Pseudomonas spp. (30.2%) and Staphylococcus aureus (2.3%), respectively (21). As shown by studies, P. aeruginosa is well-known as an opportunistic pathogen and with minimal requirements for survival can adapt to a wide range of environmental niches. The organism infected high-risk groups include neonates, patients with cystic fibrosis, burned patients, etc. (22).
In current study, antibacterial susceptibility patterns showed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa were more resistant to antibiotics than other bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are difficult or impossible to treat and increasingly have become a global crisis (23).
Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are varied and include Efflux pumps and outer membrane (OM) permeability, antibiotic inactivation, target modification, peptidoglycan and protein structure alteration. The complexity of these mechanisms may be used by P. aeruginosa against antibiotics (18,24). So, reports have shown that P. aeruginosa is difficult to control by some antibiotics (25-27).
The most resistance among isolated P. aeruginosa was related to ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone, 93.3% and 86.6%, respectively. Ranjbar et al. in Tehran reported that the Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from burned patients were resistant to ciprofloxacin (65%), ceftriaxone (60%) (28). Among the hospitalized burn patients, Sorkh also detected the Pseudomonas aeruginosa with resistance to ceftriaxone (94.66) and ciprofloxacin (84%) (29).
The lowest resistance was also identified against meropenem and cephalexin. In agreement with our study, Bayram et al. showed that meropenem, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and cefepime were the most effective drugs against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13).
In another study in India reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance to carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem) was 13-19% (30). High-level resistance to amikacin and gentamycin was detected. The performed work by Othman in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, determined that Pseudomonas were resistant to gentamicin with 85.3% resistance and to amikacin with 57.3% resistance (11).
P.aeruginosa is an alarming increase in resistance to antibiotics in our hospital especially in the Burn Center. A guideline on stewardship of the antibacterial agents should be developed for reducing and preventing of the spread of resistance.
Conflict of Interest:
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Full-Text: (1034 Views)
|
Background
|
Skin is an essential component of the nonspecific immune system that protects the host against pathogens (1-3).
Intact skin is a physical barrier and protects human from pathogenic microorganisms (4).
Contact with fire, hot water, steam, electricity, flame, radiation, or caustic chemicals can cause skin damages and interrupt the immune status, resulting loss of a competent antimicrobial barrier (5,6).
Burns has always been a major problem in many parts of the world and it is estimated that 75% of the total deaths from burns caused by wound infection. Physical damages can destroy the body's defenses that normally prevents invasion of microorganisms (6-10).
Due to disorder of the skin's mechanical integrity and suppresses the immune system, burn patients are more prone to different infections .In these patients, microorganisms especially bacteria and fungi rapidly colonize skin wound surface after damaging. Then, systemic spread may occur which can lead to inflammatory responses and life-threatening complications (11).
Despite the considerable progress of antimicrobial therapy in the last 60 years, the bacterial infections in the burn patients are increasing (12). Although the risk of infection in burns is well known, but in recent decades antibiotic-resistant isolated strains of burn patients have been reported. Thus, the distribution of drug-resistant bacteria has become a critical problem in different parts of the hospitals (13).
The prevention of infection in burn patients is an important challenge because continuous management of the burn wound must be performed (14). In uncontrolled or untreated cases, invasive infections may result in the death of the burned patient (Church, Elsayed et al. 2006).
In a burn wound, the combinations of patient factors (such as age, burn depth, and immune system) and virulence factors related to microorganisms (such as enzymes, toxins, etc.) had an important role in the infection of burn site. Different microorganisms can cause burn infection, but Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Enterococcus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, and Enterobacter spp. are the most common Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens identified in burn patients (11,15).
Aims of the study:
The aim of this study was to identify the most isolated bacterial agents from burn patients refereed to a burn center of Qom city and the evaluation of the antibiotic resistance of the isolates.
|
Materials & Methods
|
Sample collection and isolation of the bacteria
This study was a cross-sectional study that conducted among 793 patients admitted to Nekoei Burn Center of Qom, Iran, during a three-year period (from May 2012 to November 2014). After obtaining informed consent, sampling was done by wet sterile cotton swabs. The swabs were putted in 5cc of Brain Heart Infusion broth (Merck, Germany) and were immediately sent to the microbiology laboratory. The BHI tubes were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours and next sub-cultured on blood agar, MacConkey agar, mannitol salt agar, and nutrient agar media (Merck, Germany) at 37°C for 18-24 hours.
Identification of isolated bacteria
Preliminary identification of the bacterial isolates was done using conventional methods e.g. Gram staining, colony morphology, pigment production, and haemolysis pattern on blood agar, DNase, coagulase, oxidase and catalase tests. Conventional biochemical tests for Gram-negative bacteria e.g. TSI (Triple Sugar Iron), SIM (Sulfide, Indole, Motility), citrate, MR-VP and oxidation-fermentation test of the isolates were also performed to confirm the genus and species of isolates.
Antimicrobial resistance assay
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria was evaluated according to CLSI guideline (16). The antibiogram test of the isolates was carried out using antibiotic disks (PadtanTeb, Iran), including amikacin (30µg), ceftizoxime (30µg), ticarcillin (75µg), ceftriaxone (30µg), cefotaxime (30 mg), ciprofloxacin (5µg), cephalothin (30µg), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or SXT (25μg), imipenem (10µg), gentamicin (10µg), ampicillin (10µg), piperacillin (10µg), nalidixic acid (30µg), carbenicillin (100 µg), meropenem (10µg), cephalexin (30µg), oxacillin (1µg), penicillin (10U), vancomycin (30µg), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (30µg), and tetracycline (30µg) on muller-hinton agar (Merck, Germany) at 37°C for 24h.
|
Results
|
In this study, 793 patients were included which 84% and 16% of them were male and female, respectively. The highest burns equal to 60% was related to the male with an age range of 19-45 years. The distribution of various age groups is shown in Table 1.
Table 1) The percent of various age groups under study
| Age group | Percentage |
| Up to 12 | 16 |
| 13 to 18 | 16 |
| 19 to 45 | 58 |
| More than 45 | 10 |
Figure 1) Percent of wound infection in three years.
The most common bacterial isolates isolated were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (66%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (16%), Staphylococcus aureus (12%) and Klebsiella spp. (6%) (Fig. 2).
Figure 2) The frequency of the most common bacterial isolates from burn wound infections
The results of antibiotic resistance showed that the most resistance was observed among isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. High level of resistance was detected against ciprofloxacin at a rate of 93.3% and ceftriaxone amounted to 86.6%. The lowest resistance was also identified against meropenem (6.6%) and cephalexin (6.6%). Full results of the antibiotic resistance pattern of Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be seen in Table 2. Other isolated species were sensitive to evaluated antibiotics.
Table 2) The results of antimicrobial resistance.
AN; amikacin, CT; ceftizoxime, TIC; ticarcillin, CRO; ceftriaxone, CTX; Cefotaxime, CP; ciprofloxacin, SXT; trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole, IPM; imipenem, GM; gentamicin, AM; ampicillin, PIP; piperacillin, NA; nalidixic acid, CB; carbenicillin, CF; cephalothin , MER; meropenem, CN; cephalexin, TET; tetracycline.
| Antibiotic | AN | CT | TIC | CRO | CTX | CP | SXT | IPM | GM | AM | PIP | NA | CB | CF | MER | CN | TET |
| Sensitivity (%) | 6.6 | 6.6 | |||||||||||||||
| (No.) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Intermediate (%) | 13.3 | 6.6 | 6.6 | ||||||||||||||
| (No.) | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Resistance (%) | 66.6 | 33.3 | 46.6 | 86.6 | 20 | 93.3 | 33.3 | 60 | 60 | 20 | 13.3 | 13.3 | 40 | 20 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 40 |
| (No.) | 10 | 5 | 7 | 13 | 3 | 14 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
|
Discussion
|
Infectious diseases are major causes of human mortality. Today drug resistance of the microorganisms has been reported as a serious threat in health systems around the world (17). The incorrect use of first-line antibacterial treatment has led to detection of the resistant bacteria. With failure of therapy, other options may be used which are more toxic, less effective and often expensive for patients. The studies have shown that the hospitalization and the risk of death in patients with resistant infections are progressively greater (18,19).
This project was focused to determine the prevalence of the bacterial pathogens causing infection in burn wounds and to detect antibacterial resistance in the isolated species.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was dominant species in 793 patients studied, followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella spp. In performed study by Rezaei et al. shown that P. aeruginosa and Klebsiella were the most common Gram-negative bacteria and S. aureus was the most common Gram-positive organism recovered from the burn patients (20). In another work in Ghana, the predominant Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms isolated were Pseudomonas spp. (30.2%) and Staphylococcus aureus (2.3%), respectively (21). As shown by studies, P. aeruginosa is well-known as an opportunistic pathogen and with minimal requirements for survival can adapt to a wide range of environmental niches. The organism infected high-risk groups include neonates, patients with cystic fibrosis, burned patients, etc. (22).
In current study, antibacterial susceptibility patterns showed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa were more resistant to antibiotics than other bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are difficult or impossible to treat and increasingly have become a global crisis (23).
Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are varied and include Efflux pumps and outer membrane (OM) permeability, antibiotic inactivation, target modification, peptidoglycan and protein structure alteration. The complexity of these mechanisms may be used by P. aeruginosa against antibiotics (18,24). So, reports have shown that P. aeruginosa is difficult to control by some antibiotics (25-27).
The most resistance among isolated P. aeruginosa was related to ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone, 93.3% and 86.6%, respectively. Ranjbar et al. in Tehran reported that the Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from burned patients were resistant to ciprofloxacin (65%), ceftriaxone (60%) (28). Among the hospitalized burn patients, Sorkh also detected the Pseudomonas aeruginosa with resistance to ceftriaxone (94.66) and ciprofloxacin (84%) (29).
The lowest resistance was also identified against meropenem and cephalexin. In agreement with our study, Bayram et al. showed that meropenem, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and cefepime were the most effective drugs against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13).
In another study in India reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance to carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem) was 13-19% (30). High-level resistance to amikacin and gentamycin was detected. The performed work by Othman in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, determined that Pseudomonas were resistant to gentamicin with 85.3% resistance and to amikacin with 57.3% resistance (11).
|
Conclusion
|
P.aeruginosa is an alarming increase in resistance to antibiotics in our hospital especially in the Burn Center. A guideline on stewardship of the antibacterial agents should be developed for reducing and preventing of the spread of resistance.
|
Footnotes
|
Conflict of Interest:
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Microbiology
Received: 2018/05/22 | Accepted: 2018/11/18 | Published: 2018/11/25
Received: 2018/05/22 | Accepted: 2018/11/18 | Published: 2018/11/25
References
1. 1. Park YJ, Lee HK. The Role of Skin and Orogenital Microbiota in Protective Immunity and Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease. Frontiers in immunology. 2017;8:1955. Link [DOI:10.3389/fimmu.2017.01955]
2. Abdallah F, Mijouin L, Pichon C. Skin Immune Landscape: Inside and Outside the Organism. Mediators of Inflammation. 2017;2017. Link. [DOI:10.1155/2017/5095293]
3. Rajbahak S, Shrestha C, Singh A. Bacteriological changes of Burn Wounds with time and their Antibiogram. Scientific World. 2015;12(12):70-6. Link. [DOI:10.3126/sw.v12i12.13601]
4. Chahine EB, Sucher AJ. Skin and soft tissue infections. PSAP. 2015;1:1-27. Link.
5. Huang G, Sun K, Yin S, Jiang B, Chen Y, Gong Y, et al. Burn Injury Leads to Increase in Relative Abundance of Opportunistic Pathogens in the Rat Gastrointestinal Microbiome. Frontiers in microbiology. 2017;8:1237. Link. [DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2017.01237]
6. Church D, Elsayed S, Reid O, Winston B, Lindsay R. Burn wound infections. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2006;19(2):403-34. Link. [DOI:10.1128/CMR.19.2.403-434.2006]
7. Srinivasan S, Vartak AM, Patil A, Saldanha J. Bacteriology of the burn wound at the Bai Jerbai Wadia hospital for children, Mumbai, India-A 13-year study, Part I-Bacteriological profile. Indian journal of plastic surgery: official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. 2009;42(2):213. Link. [DOI:10.4103/0970-0358.59284]
8. Bowler P, Duerden B, Armstrong DG. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2001;14(2):244-69. Link. [DOI:10.1128/CMR.14.2.244-269.2001]
9. Gouma E, Batistatou A, Verginadis II, Simos YV, Kyros L, Hadjikakou SK, et al. The Healing Effect of Four Different Silver Complexes on Full-thickness Skin Burns in a Rat Model. In Vivo. 2015;29(1):55-63. Link.
10. Saeidinia A, Keihanian F, Lashkari AP, Lahiji HG, Mobayyen M, Heidarzade A, et al. Partial-thickness burn wounds healing by topical treatment: A randomized controlled comparison between silver sulfadiazine and centiderm. Medicine. 2017;96(9). Link. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000006168]
11. Othman N, Babakir-Mina M, Noori CK, Rashid PY. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in burn patients in Sulaimaniyah, Iraq: risk factors and antibiotic resistance rates. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2014;8(11):1498-502. Link. [DOI:10.3855/jidc.4707]
12. Shariati A, Azimi T, Ardebili A, Chirani AS, Bahramian A, Pormohammad A, et al. Insertional inactivation of oprD in carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from burn patients in Tehran, Iran. New microbes and new infections. 2018;21:75-80. Link. [DOI:10.1016/j.nmni.2017.10.013]
13. Bayram Y, Parlak M, Aypak C, Bayram İ. Three-year review of bacteriological profile and antibiogram of burn wound isolates in Van, Turkey. International journal of medical sciences. 2013;10(1):19. Link. [DOI:10.7150/ijms.4723]
14. Mohapatra S, Deb M, Agrawal K, Chopra S, Gaind R. Bacteriological profile of patients and environmental samples in burn intensive care unit: a pilot study from a tertiary care hospital. Indian Journal of Burns. 2014;22(1):62. Link. [DOI:10.4103/0971-653X.147010]
15. Macedo JLSd, Santos JB. Bacterial and fungal colonization of burn wounds. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. 2005;100(5):535-9. Link. [DOI:10.1590/S0074-02762005000500014]
16. Kassim A, Omuse G, Premji Z, Revathi G. Comparison of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing guidelines for the interpretation of antibiotic susceptibility at a University teaching hospital in Nairobi, Kenya: a cross-sectional study. Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials. 2016;15(1):21. Link. [DOI:10.1186/s12941-016-0135-3]
17. Shams S, Hashemi A, Esmkhani M, Kermani S, Shams E, Piccirillo A. Imipenem resistance in clinical Escherichia coli from Qom, Iran. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):314. Link. [DOI:10.1186/s13104-018-3406-6]
18. Lister PD, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND. Antibacterial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical impact and complex regulation of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2009;22(4):582-610. Link. [DOI:10.1128/CMR.00040-09]
19. Control CfD, Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013. Link.
20. Rezaei E, Safari H, Naderinasab M, Aliakbarian H. Common pathogens in burn wound and changes in their drug sensitivity. Burns. 2011;37(5):805-7. Link. [DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2011.01.019]
21. Forson O, Ayanka E, Olu-Taiwo M, Pappoe-Ashong P, Ayeh-Kumi P. Bacterial infections in burn wound patients at a tertiary teaching hospital in Accra, Ghana. Annals of burns and fire disasters. 2017;30(2):116. Link.
22. Bedard E, Prevost M, Deziel E. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in premise plumbing of large buildings. MicrobiologyOpen. 2016;5(6):937-56. Link. [DOI:10.1002/mbo3.391]
23. Blair JM, Webber MA, Baylay AJ, Ogbolu DO, Piddock LJ. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2015;13(1):42. Link. [DOI:10.1038/nrmicro3380]
24. Džidić S, Šušković J, Kos B. Antibiotic resistance mechanisms in bacteria: biochemical and genetic aspects. Food Technology & Biotechnology. 2008;46(1). Link.
25. Weinstein RA, Mayhall CG. The epidemiology of burn wound infections: then and now. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2003;37(4):543-50. Link. [DOI:10.1086/376993]
26. Lambert P. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of the royal society of medicine. 2002;95(Suppl 41):22. Link.
27. Hare NJ, Solis N, Harmer C, Marzook NB, Rose B, Harbour C, et al. Proteomic profiling of Pseudomonas aeruginosa AES-1R, PAO1 and PA14 reveals potential virulence determinants associated with a transmissible cystic fibrosis-associated strain. BMC microbiology. 2012;12(1):16.Link. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2180-12-16]
28. Ranjbar R, Owlia P, Saderi H, Mansouri S, Jonaidi-Jafari N, Izadi M, et al. Characterization of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from burned patients hospitalized in a major burn center in Tehran, Iran. Acta Medica Iranica. 2011;49(10):675-9. Link.
29. Sorkh MAG, Shokoohizadeh L, Rashidi N, Tajbakhsh E. Molecular Analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Strains Isolated from Burn Patients by Repetitive Extragenic Palindromic-PCR (rep-PCR). Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2017;19(4). Link. [DOI:10.5812/ircmj.43508]
30. Biswal I, Arora BS, Dimple Kasana N. Incidence of multidrug resistant pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn patients and environment of teaching institution. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2014;8(5):DC26. Link
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Owned by Qom University of Medical Sciences
Published by Qom University of Medical Sciences Press
eISSN: 2322-4916
pISSN: 2251-9203
Email: arch.hygiene[at]muq.ac.ir
arch.hygiene[at]gmail.com
