2018, VOL. 4 ISSUE 3, PART C
This study was carried out in 226 patients, from whom 271 bacterial isolates were identified between January to April 2014. All the specimens were from the burn ward (165) and other were from burn ICU unit (106) of the tertiary hospital, New Delhi. Data was collected from laboratory patient records, isolates were graphed according to incidence of both Pseudomonas aeruginosa
and Acinetobacter species
in duration of January to April 2014 and their antimicrobial profile.
It was seen that the number of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were greater than the number of Acinetobacter in all the four months. For result analysis and computation, antimicrobial profile of both Acinetobacter species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa obtained from multiple swabs were added together. It was also observed that most of the P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter isolates were highly resistant to antibiotics. The total number of P. aeruginosa isolates were 152/271.Most of the P. aeruginosa isolates were highly resistant to antibiotics- ceftazidime (88.8%), amikacin (95.3%), ciproflox (96%), netilmicin (92.6%), cefoperazone + sulbactam (83.5%) meropenam (74.3%), piperacillin + tazobactam (61.8%). 60% of these isolates were sensitive to imipenam. The total number of Acinetobacter isolates were 119/271. Acinetobacter isolates collected were highly resistant to ceftazidime (100%), amikacin (99%), ciproflox (98.3%), cefoperazone + sulbactam (56. 3%), meropenam (94.9%), piperacillin + tazobactam (86.5%) and imipenam (61.3%). 64.4% of these strains were sensitive to netilmicin.