Keywords
pus sample - wound infection - antimicrobial susceptibility - pyogenic - multidrug
resistant - GNB - GPC
Introduction
A wound is a break in the skin or tissues integrity, which can result in structural
and functional disturbances.[1] Infection of the wound can be pyogenic (pus forming) or nonpyogenic, depending on
the causative organism. The majority of the organisms in wounds are aerobes, includes
gram-positive cocci (GPC) such as Enterococci, Staphylococcus epidermis, S. aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, and gram-negative bacilli (GNB) such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Proteus.[2] A wound infection is more likely to occur in situations with higher wound class
(dirty-infected wound) and higher bacterial load.[3] Microbes are the unseen adversaries of humans, wreaking havoc on the human body
as well as other living organisms.[4]
[5] Bacterial illnesses continue to be the predominant factor in morbidity and mortality.[6] Various bacterial species reside on human skin, in the nasopharynx, in the gastrointestinal
system, and other areas of the body, but they have a lower risk of causing disease
due to the body's first line of defense.[7] Microbial pathogens cause human skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) during or
after trauma, burns, bites, abrasions, minor cuts, lacerations, crush injuries, gunshot
injury, and surgical procedures. Compromising in front line of defense leads to bacterial
contamination, resulting in the generation of pus, a white or yellow fluid containing
dead leukocytes, cellular detritus, and devitalized tissue.[8]
[9] Infection can be either endogenous or exogenous.[10] The loss of skin integrity due to a variety of reasons creates an environment conducive
to the colonization and proliferation of microorganisms.[11] Humidity, heat, and nutrition in the wound attract pathogen from the cutaneous surface,
environment, or the patient's own flora, which grow and release various virulence
factors, resulting in wound infection.[12] Immune cells are recruited to the infection site by the body's defense mechanism
to fight pathogens.[13] Pyogenic infection results from the build-up of these cells inhibits wound healing
and can lead to complications such as wound dehiscence or wound disintegration.[14] Fungus, in addition to bacteria, can induce wound infection, and they might coincide
with more than one bacteria in a single lesion.[15] Infectious diseases are a major threat to human health and life.[16] Antimicrobial agents or medications are substances that have the ability to kill
bacteria or stop them from multiplying.[17] Knowing the susceptibility of a certain bacteria to an antibiotic helps you to treat
the patient empirically until the culture report is generated. The choice of antibiotics
is then determined by the results of the culture.[13] Inadvertent and inappropriate antibiotics use results in the establishment of a
drug-resistant bacteria, which leads to a lengthy hospital stay, a significant financial
loss, and serious medical complications.[18] During a prolonged hospital stay, a patient may spread drug-resistant microorganisms
to other patients, family, or even health care workers.[19] The antibiotics susceptibility of these organisms in a given environment change
over time as bacteria evolve and as antibiotic use or misuse patterns change.[20] The rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogenic microorganism is regarded as a severe
hazard to global public health.[21]
Materials and Methods
Study Design and Sampling Process
The study was conducted in the microbiology department at Birla Institute of Medical
Research (BIMR) Hospital, Gwalior from September 2021 to April 2022 for a period of
8 months. The pus samples were taken from individuals who were examined in the outpatient
department and were admitted to the hospital's inpatient department, using sterile
cotton swabs, a syringe, or a sealed capillary tube. It was labeled and immediately
sent to microbiology laboratory. The study population consisted of all individuals
who had SSTIs.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
As part of standard patient treatment, nonduplicated specimen was taken and cultured.
The pus sample from one location is included, unless it was taken from the other location.
One patient underwent susceptibility testing only once.
The study excluded patients with missing antibiotic sensitivity results, inadequate
data, prior exposure to antibiotics, or repeated culture results during the last 6
months.
Isolation and Identification
The isolation and identification of microorganisms from the sample of pus were performed
by streaking sample on MacConkey agar and blood agar plates, and incubating them at
37°C for 24 to 48 hours. Following incubation, bacterial colonies showing different
characteristics were chosen for further investigation. The colonies grown were identified
with the help of Gram staining which differentiate gram-positive and -negative bacteria
followed by biochemical test such as coagulase, catalase, indole, Voges–Proskauer,
methyl red, oxidase test, urease, and citrate which were performed as per standard
protocol.
Catalase enzyme estimation aids to distinguish Streptococci from Staphylococci colonies. The coagulase test distinguishes S. aureus (which is coagulase positive) from S. epidermis and S. saprophyticus (which is coagulase negative). Oxidase test were used to distinguish Enterobacteriaceae
from other GNB.
Samples considered to be negative when no growth was observed on blood agar and MacConkey
agar media only after 48 hours of incubation.
Antimicrobial Agents
GNB were tested with antibiotic discs such as amikacin (30 µg), gentamycin (10 µg),
ertapenem (10 µg), meropenem (10 µg), imipenem (10 µg), ceftazidime (30 µg), cefazolin
(30 µg), cefepime (30 µg), ceftriaxone (30 µg), cefuroxime (30 µg), cefoxitin (30
µg), ampicillin (10 µg), piperacillin–tazobactam (10 µg), ampicillin–sulbactam (10
µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), levofloxacin (5 µg), trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (25
µg), ceftazidime–avibactam (30 µg), chloramphenicol (30 µg).
GPC were tested with antibiotic discs such as cefoxitin (30 µg), cefazolin (30 µg),
ampicillin (25 µg), penicillin-G (2 units), erythromycin (15 µg), fusidic acid (30
µg), vancomycin (30 µg), clindamycin (2 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), moxifloxacin (5
µg), mupirocin (5 µg), doxycycline (30 µg), daptomycin, quinupristin–dalfopristin
(15 µg), rifampin (5 µg), chloramphenicol (30 µg), linezolid (30 µg), trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole
(25 µg).
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
The antibiotic susceptibility testing was done as per Clinical and Laboratory Standards
institute (CLSI) guidelines using Kirby–Bauer's method.[22] Inoculum was prepared for each bacterial isolate by matching the turbidity to 0.5
McFarland standard and spreading on Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) plate. Paper disc which
contains antibiotics were kept on the top of the MHA plate and incubate at 37°C for
24 hours. According to CLSI M100 Guideline 2022, the size of the zones of inhibition
was classified as sensitive, moderate, or resistant to the antibiotics tested.[22]
For accurate identification of pathogen and their susceptibility pattern, automated
BD Phoenix M50 machine were used as per manufacturer's instruction.
Quality Control
Pseudomonas aeruginosa American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 27853, S. aureus ATCC 25923, and E. coli ATCC 25922 strains are used as quality control for the identification and susceptibility
test ([Table 1]).
Table 1
Quality control data for antibiotics
Antimicrobial agent
|
Diameter of zone of inhibition in mm
|
Escherichia coli
ATCC 25922
|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
ATCC 27853
|
Staphylococcus aureus
ATCC 25923
|
Amikacin
|
19–26
|
18–26
|
–
|
Gentamicin
|
19–26
|
17–23
|
–
|
Ertapenem
|
29–36
|
–
|
–
|
Imipenem
|
26–32
|
20–28
|
–
|
Meropenem
|
28–35
|
27–33
|
–
|
Cefazolin
|
21–27
|
–
|
29–35
|
Cefuroxime
|
20–26
|
–
|
–
|
Cefoxitin
|
23–29
|
–
|
23–29
|
Ceftazidime
|
25–32
|
22–29
|
–
|
Ceftriaxone
|
29–35
|
–
|
–
|
Cefepime
|
31–37
|
25–31
|
–
|
Ampicillin
|
15–22
|
–
|
27–35
|
Ampicillin–sulbactam
|
15–22
|
–
|
–
|
Piperacillin–tazobactam
|
21–25
|
21–25
|
–
|
Ciprofloxacin
|
29–38
|
25–33
|
22–30
|
Levofloxacin
|
29–37
|
19–26
|
–
|
Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole
|
23–29
|
–
|
24–32
|
Ceftazidime-avibactam
|
21–25
|
21–25
|
–
|
Chloramphenicol
|
21–27
|
–
|
19–26
|
Penicillin-G
|
–
|
–
|
26–37
|
Vancomycin
|
–
|
–
|
17–21
|
Clindamycin
|
–
|
–
|
24–30
|
Erythromycin
|
–
|
–
|
22–30
|
Moxifloxacin
|
–
|
–
|
28–35
|
Doxycycline
|
–
|
–
|
23–29
|
Quinupristin–dalfopristin
|
–
|
–
|
21–28
|
Fusidic acid
|
–
|
–
|
24–32
|
Linezolid
|
–
|
–
|
25–32
|
Mupirocin
|
–
|
–
|
18–24
|
Rifampin
|
–
|
–
|
26–34
|
Abbreviation: ATCC, American Type Culture Collection.
Results
A total of 175 pus samples were received in the department of microbiology from September
2021 to April 2022. Out of total 175 pus/wound swab samples processed, 102 (58.28%)
samples were culture positive, whereas 73 (41.71%) samples were negative for growth.
Out of 102 positive samples, monomicrobial infections were seen in 92 (90.19%) samples,
whereas polymicrobial infections with growth of two pathogens in 10 (9.80%) samples,
and total 112 bacterial strains were isolated. Among 112 isolates, 83 (74.10%) were
GNB, 23 (20.53%) were GPC, and 6 (5.35%) were Candida. Among 102 (58.28%) culture positive, mostly in the age of 40 to 60 years, it was
41 (40.20%) cases, subsequently 20 to 40 years, >60 years and then <20 years which
was 30 (29.41%), 21 (20.59%) and 10 (9.80%) instances, respectively ([Table 2]).
Table 2
Age- and gender-wise distribution of bacterial growth from pus/wound sample
Age group
|
No. of male (%)
|
No. of female (%)
|
Frequency (%) (n = 102)
|
< 20 y
|
7 (6.86)
|
3 (2.94)
|
10 (9.80)
|
20–40 y
|
22 (21.56)
|
8 (7.84)
|
30 (29.41)
|
40–60 y
|
27 (26.47)
|
14 (13.72)
|
41 (40.20)
|
> 60 y
|
10 (9.80)
|
11 (10.78)
|
21 (20.59)
|
Total
|
66 (64.70)
|
36 (35.29)
|
102 (100̀)
|
Discussion
Infection of the wound is the common cause of patient's impairment and if it is not
cured in early stage, then it increases the hospital stays. Severe wound infections
can lead to sepsis, which can be fatal, especially if the bacteria are multidrug resistant.
Any wound has the potential to get infected as infection of the wound becomes commonest
hospital-acquired infection. In the present study, pus samples from a tertiary care
hospital were analyzed to determine the etiological agents and their pattern of antibiotic
susceptibility.
The majority (58.28%) of the samples in this study revealed positive growth. This
is due to the fact that suppurative infections of the eye, ear, and skin are frequently
seen in both inpatient and outpatient departments. Furthermore, among surgical patients,
wound infection is the most prevalent hospital-acquired infection. It has been linked
to more trauma care, longer hospitals stay, and treatment. The results revealed 58.28%
positivity rate of total sample that correlate with the studies of Rai et al[23] (59%), Trojan et al[8] (60.1%), and Khanam et al[21] (61.8%); however, it exceeded a study conducted by Singh et al[13] (52.73%) and less than a research conducted by Muluye et al[7] (70.2%) and Batra et al[24] (85.02%).
According to sex, the predominance of males (64.70%) is higher than females (35.29%)
in the present study ([Table 2]). It is most likely related to increased exposure to the environment and the increased
risk of accidents when earning a living, as well as social behavior in which males
are treated as superior to female and are given preferential biased treatment when
compared with females.
In the present study, monomicrobial infections predominated (90.19%), while polymicrobial
infections were observed (9.80%) ([Tables 3] and [4]). The study by Sudhaharan et al[11] found that monomicrobial infection was 93.2% and polymicrobial infection was 6.8%;
this result is consistent with our findings.
Table 3
Frequency/percentage of the isolates (monomicrobial) after aerobic culture from pus/wound
sample
Isolated organisms
|
Frequency (n = 86)
|
Percentage
|
Escherichia coli
|
20
|
23.25
|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
|
18
|
20.93
|
Staphylococcus aureus
|
15
|
17.44
|
Klebsiella spp.
|
12
|
13.95
|
Acinetobacter spp.
|
10
|
11.62
|
Enterobacter cloacae
|
2
|
2.32
|
Morganella morganii
|
2
|
2.32
|
CoNS
|
2
|
2.32
|
Micrococcus
|
2
|
2.32
|
Enterococcus spp.
|
1
|
1.16
|
Burkholderia spp.
|
1
|
1.16
|
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
|
1
|
1.16
|
Total
|
86
|
100
|
Abbreviation: CoNS, coagulase-negative staphylococci.
Table 4
Frequency/percentage of mixed isolates (polymicrobial) after aerobic culture from
pus/wound sample
Mixed isolated organisms
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
Escherichia coli + Pseudomonas aeruginosa
|
3
|
30
|
Escherichia coli + Proteus mirabilis
|
2
|
20
|
Staphylococcus aureus + Klebsiella spp.
|
1
|
10
|
Staphylococcus aureus + Pseudomonas aeruginosa
|
1
|
10
|
Enterococcus spp. + Klebsiella spp.
|
1
|
10
|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa + Klebsiella spp.
|
1
|
10
|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa + Morganella morganii
|
1
|
10
|
Total
|
10
|
100
|
In the present study, GNB were the predominant isolates which was 74.10% compared
with GPC which was 20.53% and Candida which was 5.35%. A research done by Bankar et al[25] also recorded predominance of GNB which was 51.97%, whereas GPC was 47.36% and Candida was 0.65%.
In the present study, the most common isolates were E. coli (GNB) and S. aureus (GPC) ([Table 3]). The present findings correlate with the research done by Trojan et al,[8] Bankar et al,[25] Sudhaharan et al,[11] and Singh et al,[13] in which E. coli (GNB) and S. aureus (GPC) were the highly prevalent bacterial isolates in the cases of wound infection.
According to present research, chloramphenicol (100%) was the most effective antibiotic
against E. coli, followed by amikacin (88%), meropenem and ceftazidime–avibactam (72%) ([Table 5]). Meropenem sensitivity was comparable to research conducted by Trojan et al[8] (68%); however, the results were not in synchronization with the studies of Khanam
et al[21] (50%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed higher sensitivity to gentamicin, meropenem, and piperacillin–tazobactam (50%),
Klebsiella showed higher sensitivity to ceftazidime–avibactam and chloramphenicol (33.33%).
Amikacin, cefoxitin, and piperacillin–tazobactam (100%) were highly sensitive against
Morganella morganii. Amikacin and chloramphenicol (100%) were highly sensitive against Enterobacter cloacae.
Table 5
Frequency/percentage of antibiotic sensitivity pattern of GNB isolated from pus/wound
sample
Antibiotics
|
Acinetobacter spp. (n = 10)
|
Burkholderia (n = 1)
|
Enterobacter cloacae (n = 2)
|
Escherichia coli (n = 25)
|
Klebsiella spp. (n = 15)
|
Morganella morganii (n = 3)
|
Proteus mirabilis (n = 2)
|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 24)
|
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 1)
|
Amikacin
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
22 (88%
|
3 (20%)
|
3 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
11 (45.83%)
|
IR
|
Gentamicin
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
15 (60%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
2 (66.66%)
|
2 (100%)
|
12 (50%)
|
IR
|
Ertapenem
|
IR
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
14 (56%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
2 (66.66%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Imipenem
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
16 (64%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
0 (0%)
|
NA
|
11 (45.83%)
|
IR
|
Meropenem
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
18 (72%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
2 (66.66%)
|
2 (100%)
|
12 (50%)
|
IR
|
Cefazolin
|
IR
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (12%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Cefuroxime
|
IR
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (12%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Cefoxitin
|
IR
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
10 (40%)
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Ceftazidime
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
4 (16%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
2 (66.66%)
|
2 (100%)
|
11 (45.83%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Ceftriaxone
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
4 (16%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
1 (33.33%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Cefepime
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (12%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
1 (33.33%)
|
2 (100%)
|
7 (29.16%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Ampicillin
|
IR
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (12%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Ampicillin–sulbactam
|
0 (0%)
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
5 (20%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
IR
|
IR
|
Piperacillin–tazobactam
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
11 (44%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
3 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
12 (50%)
|
IR
|
Ciprofloxacin
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (12%)
|
1 (6.66%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
7 (29.16%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Levofloxacin
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (50%)
|
5 (20%)
|
1 (6.66%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
8 (33.33%)
|
1 (100%)
|
Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole
|
2 (20%)
|
1 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
11 (44%)
|
2 (13.33%)
|
1 (33.33%)
|
1 (50%)
|
IR
|
1 (100%)
|
Ceftazidime–avibactam
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
18 (72%)
|
5 (33.33%)
|
3 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
16 (66.66%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Chloramphenicol
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
25 (100%)
|
5 (33.33%)
|
2 (66.66%)
|
1 (50%)
|
IR
|
1 (100%)
|
Abbreviations: GNB, gram-negative bacilli; IR, intrinsic resistant; NA, not available.
In the present study, Acinetobacter spp. and Burkholderia spp. are 100% resistant to multiple antibiotic except trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole
which shows 20 and 100% sensitivity, respectively ([Table 5]). It is due to the evolution of bacteria with the passage of time.
The antibiotic sensitivity pattern of S. aureus in the present study shows 100% sensitivity to vancomycin, doxycycline, and linezolid
([Table 6]). It was equivalent to the study conducted by Batra et al[24] and Trojan et al[8] which shows 100% sensitivity to linezolid and vancomycin, but it was inconsistent
with the study done by Khanam et al[21] which shows 31.2 and 18.5% sensitivity to linezolid and vancomycin, respectively.
Table 6
Frequency/percentage of antibiotic sensitivity pattern of GPC isolated from pus/wound
sample
Antibiotics
|
Staphylococcus
aureus (n = 17)
|
Enterococcus (n = 2)
|
CoNS (n = 2)
|
Cefazolin
|
6 (35.29%)
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
Cefoxitin
|
6 (35.29%)
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
Ampicillin
|
2 (11.76%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Penicillin-g
|
2 (11.76%)
|
2 (100%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Vancomycin
|
17 (100%)
|
2(100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Clindamycin
|
11 (64.70%)
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
Erythromycin
|
4 (23.52%)
|
1 (50%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Ciprofloxacin
|
1 (5.88%)
|
1 (50%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Moxifloxacin
|
14 (82.35%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Doxycycline
|
17 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Daptomycin
|
16 (94.11%)
|
2 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole
|
6 (35.29%)
|
IR
|
0 (0%)
|
Quinupristin–dalfopristin
|
15 (88.23%)
|
1 (50%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Chloramphenicol
|
15 (88.23%)
|
2 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Fusidic acid
|
16 (94.11%)
|
IR
|
2 (100%)
|
Linezolid
|
17 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Mupirocin
|
15 (88.23%)
|
2 (100%)
|
1 (50%)
|
Rifampin
|
14 (82.35%)
|
NA
|
0 (0%)
|
Abbreviation: CoNS, coagulase-negative staphylococci; GPC, gram-positive cocci; IR,
intrinsic resistant; NA, not available.
In the present study, vancomycin, doxycycline, and linezolid were 100% sensitive to
S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), and Enterococcus. Daptomycin are 100% sensitive to CoNS and Enterococcus ([Table 6]). The current results are consistent with Batra et al[24] who recorded linezolid and vancomycin were 100% sensitive for S. aureus and CoNS.
The incidence of pyogenic isolates of bacteria and their patterns of antibiotic resistance
vary widely depending on geographic location and atmospheric conditions. Due to the
rising incidence of isolates that are resistant to multiple drugs-resistant bacteria,
it is more prevalent in wound infections. Thus, the present study indicates to patient
neglect, inadequate treatment plans, antibiotic usage, self- and mis-prescription,
a lack of regional antibiogram data, and clinician's weak understanding of multidrug-resistant
isolates and antimicrobial resistance. Controlling antibiotic overuse and implementing
infection–prevention measures from primary to tertiary care would aid in the prevention
of infections caused by resistant bacteria. Antibiotics should be used rationally,
at the appropriate dose and duration.
Conclusion
The current research highlights that GNB are the most frequent microorganisms which
cause the infection of wound, and it is due to the fact that the organisms causing
wound infections are frequently present in hospital environments. For GNB, amikacin,
gentamicin, and chloramphenicol are the most effective antibiotics, whereas for GPC,
doxycycline, linezolid, and chloramphenicol are the most effective antibiotics. Thus,
the present study exhibited that increase in bacterial resistance as compared with
other studies is due to the modification or evolution of bacteria with the time or
irrational use of antibiotics.[26]