Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/321
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWasiak, Jason-
dc.contributor.otherMahar, Patrick-
dc.contributor.otherCleland, Heather-
dc.contributor.otherPaul, Eldho-
dc.contributor.otherGin, Douglas-
dc.contributor.otherWatters, David-
dc.contributor.otherMarsh, Philip-
dc.contributor.otherPadiglione, Alexander-
dc.date2014-09-
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-24T01:10:38Z-
dc.date.available2015-08-24T01:10:38Z-
dc.date.issued2015-03-
dc.identifier.citationJ Burn Care Res. 2014 Nov-Dec;35(6):518-24en_US
dc.identifier.issn1559-047Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/321-
dc.description.abstractThe objective of this study was to determine rates of positive bacterial cultures in patients with extensive toxic epidermal necrolysis, the rate of bacteremia, whether empirical antibiotics had been commenced, and their effectiveness when commenced. The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with extensive toxic epidermal necrolysis between January 2001 and December 2012 admitted to the Victorian Adult Burns Service, Melbourne, Australia, with respect to the amount of positive cultures, number and type of organisms identified, whether empirical antibiotics had been commenced, and whether antibiotics were effective against organisms cultured. A total of 27 patients were admitted over the study period of 11 years. Seventeen of these patients developed at least one positive bacterial culture. Patients who grew positive cultures had a longer length of stay in intensive care unit and in hospital overall compared with patients who did not grow positive cultures. Thirty-five positive cultures were collected overall, with empirical antibiotics commenced in 22 cases. In terms of sensitivity, antibiotics were appropriate in 19 cases. Four patients developed bacteremia, two of whom died. This study does not dispute the generally accepted practice of avoiding prophylactic antibiotics in toxic epidermal necrolysis patients, but in the context of a relatively low rate of bacteremia in this patient population, advises appropriate and targeted empirical antibiotic use where clinical infection is suspected.en_US
dc.publisherOvid / Wolters Kluweren_US
dc.subjectClinical Medicineen_US
dc.subjectToxic Epidermal Necrolysisen_US
dc.subjectEmpirical Antibioticsen_US
dc.subjectBurns-Therapyen_US
dc.subjectBacterial Infectionsen_US
dc.subjectAnti-Bacterial Agentsen_US
dc.subjectVictorian Adult Burns Serviceen_US
dc.subjectEpworth Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleSecondary bacterial infection and empirical antibiotic use in toxic epidermal necrolysis patients.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/BCR.0000000000000062en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Burn Care & Researchen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24988228en_US
dc.description.affiliatesVictorian Adult Burns Service, Department of Dermatology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartments of Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialRetrospective studiesen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Radiation Oncology

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.