Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 26, 2021 01 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33516271

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Intensive care units (ICU) are essential healthcare facility for life threatening conditions. Bacterial contamination of objects/instruments in ICU is an important source of nosocomial infections. This study is aimed to determine the level of bacterial contamination of instruments/objects which are commonly touched by healthcare workers and frequently come in contact with the neonates. METHODS: This hospital based prospective study was conducted in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal. A total of 146 samples collected from surfaces of incubators, radiant warmers, suction tips, ventilators, stethoscopes, door handles, weighing machines, mothers' beds, phototherapy beds, laryngoscope, telephone sets, blood pressure machine, etc. formed the material of the study. Isolation, identification and antibiotic susceptibility of the bacterial isolates was performed by standard techniques. Blood culture isolates from NICU patients during the study period were compared with the environmental isolates. RESULTS: Out of 146 samples, bacterial growth was observed in 109. A total of 119 bacterial isolates were retrieved from 109 samples. Three common potential pathogens isolated were Escherichia coli (n = 27), Klebsiella species (n = 21) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 18). Majority of E. coli and Klebsiella isolates were from incubators, suction tips and mothers' beds. Majority of S. aureus isolates were cultured from radiant warmers. Among S. aureus isolates, 33.3% (6/18) were methicillin resistant. Majority of the bacterial isolates were susceptible to gentamicin and amikacin. Common potential pathogens isolated from blood culture of NICU patients were S. aureus and Klebsiella species. CONCLUSION: High degree of bacterial contamination of objects/instruments in NICU was recorded. Isolation of potential pathogens like E. coli, Klebsiella species and S. aureus is a major threat of nosocomial infections. Blood culture data of NICU reflects possibility of nosocomial infections from contaminated sites. Gentamicin and amikacin may be used for empirical therapy in suspected cases of nosocomial infections in NICU.


Asunto(s)
Contaminación de Equipos/estadística & datos numéricos , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Neonatal , Cultivo de Sangre , Infección Hospitalaria , Escherichia coli/aislamiento & purificación , Hospitales de Enseñanza , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Klebsiella/aislamiento & purificación , Pruebas de Sensibilidad Microbiana , Nepal , Estudios Prospectivos , Staphylococcus aureus/aislamiento & purificación , Centros de Atención Terciaria
3.
Cornea ; 29(7): 751-7, 2010 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20489580

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Comparative evaluation of efficacy of monotherapy with moxifloxacin (0.5%) or gatifloxacin (0.3%) with combination therapy of cefazolin (5%) and tobramycin (1.3%) in treatment of bacterial corneal ulcers. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with bacterial keratitis (ulcer diameter 2-8 mm) were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment groups (tobramycin 1.3% and cefazolin 5%, gatifloxacin 0.3%, or moxifloxacin 0.5%). After obtaining corneal scrapings, assigned study medication was instilled hourly for 48 hours and tapered as per clinical response. Healing of ulcer, duration to cure, adverse reactions, antibiogram profile, treatment failures, final visual acuity, and corneal opacity size were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were enrolled [cefazolin and tobramycin (n = 20), gatifloxacin (n = 21), and moxifloxacin (n = 20)]. Overall, 57 patients (93%) healed on treatment. On comparison of the mean time taken to heal, no statistically significant difference was found among all the 3 treatment groups (P = 0.98). Positive bacterial culture was obtained in only 38 patients (62%). There was no significant difference in the bacterial isolates in each treatment group. There were 4 (7%) treatment failures (perforation or nonhealing ulcer): 1 (5%) each in moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin group and 2 (10%) in fortified antibiotics group. All regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The study failed to find a difference in the efficacy of monotherapy with fourth-generation fluoroquinolones in the treatment of bacterial corneal ulcers of 2-8 mm size when compared with combination therapy of fortified antibiotics.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Compuestos Aza/uso terapéutico , Cefazolina/uso terapéutico , Úlcera de la Córnea/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Bacterianas del Ojo/tratamiento farmacológico , Fluoroquinolonas/uso terapéutico , Quinolinas/uso terapéutico , Tobramicina/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Compuestos Aza/efectos adversos , Bacterias/efectos de los fármacos , Bacterias/aislamiento & purificación , Cefazolina/efectos adversos , Niño , Úlcera de la Córnea/microbiología , Quimioterapia Combinada , Infecciones Bacterianas del Ojo/microbiología , Femenino , Fluoroquinolonas/efectos adversos , Gatifloxacina , Humanos , Masculino , Pruebas de Sensibilidad Microbiana , Persona de Mediana Edad , Moxifloxacino , Estudios Prospectivos , Quinolinas/efectos adversos , Tobramicina/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Agudeza Visual , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA