MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

062
The Impact of Nosocomial Resistant <i>Pseudomonas</i> Infections in a Burn Unit

2004· article· en· W2084111893 on OpenAlexaff
Edward E. Tredget, Heather A. Shankowsky, Jonathan P. Lee, Todd A. Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGentamicinPseudomonas aeruginosaAminoglycosideDemographicsIntensive care unitMortality rateInternal medicineAntibioticsPseudomonas infectionTotal body surface areaSurgeryMicrobiologyBacteriaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction : Pseudomonas aeruginosa , remains a serious cause of nosocomial infection and septic mortality in burn patients particularly when nosocomially acquired. Our purpose is to investigate the morbidity and mortality associated with nosocomial infection with an aminoglycoside resistant Pseudomonas and associated costs compared to a group of patients with similar severity of burn injury that did not acquire resistant Pseudomonas during hospitalization. Methods : Using a TRACS burn database, patients treated at our institution with Pseudomona s resistant to gentamicin were identified and case‐matched to controls for age (±5 years), TBSA(±5%), admission year (±5 years) and presence of inhalation injury. Patients who died &lt;48 hours after injury were excluded. Data examined included demographics, number of days to onset of positive Pseudomonas culture and gentamicin resistance, as well as antibiotic use and cost. Results : 42 patients admitted to our unit between 1980 and 2001 were identified with gentamicin resistant Pseudomonas . Patients in the resistant Pseudomonas ( Ps ) group were similar in age (39.2 ± 3.2 vs 40.4 ± 3.3 years), TBSA (47.5 ± 3.7 vs 48.9 ± 3.7%), extent of full thickness injury (37.0 ± 3.9 vs 30.3 ± 3.2%) and presence of inhalation injury (62.8% vs 55.0%) compared to controls. There was a significant increase in the mortality rate in the Ps group (39.5 vs 5.0%, p &lt; 0.001)(paired t test) compared to controls and the morbidity in terms of length of stay, increased in the Ps group (73.1 ± 13.2 vs 55.8 ± 8.1 days). Ventilatory days (22.6 ± 5.1 vs 8.2 ± 2.4, p &lt; 0.05), number of surgical procedures (4.5 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 2.5, p &lt; 0.05), and amount of blood products used (packed cells 47.9 ± 7.8 vs 18.6 ± 3.3, p &lt; 0.01)(platelets 10.5 ± 2.9 vs 0.5 ± 0.3, p &lt; 0.01) were all significantly higher in the Ps group compared to control. Costs associated with antibiotic requirements were also significantly higher in the Ps group ($3,191.90 ± 848.00 vs $613.60 ± 145.50, p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions : Our data demonstrate that nosocomial infection in burn patients with aminoglycoside‐resistant Pseudomonas is associated with significantly higher morbidity and mortality and cost of care. Increased resource consumption in terms of length of stay, number of surgical procedures, amount of blood products, and antibiotic costs did not prevent significantly higher mortality rates when compared to control patients who avoided infection with the resistant organism. Thus, prevention, identification and eradication of nosocomial Pseudomona s infection are critical for cost‐effective, successful burn care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207