The therapeutic response was defined as the combined clinical (no further antibiotic therapy was required) and bacteriological (original pathogens were erradicated) responses.
Animal pathogens are mesophiles.
According to Olayinka et al., constant bacteriological monitoring of the pathogens isolated from clinical specimens of patients in special units is necessary to draw attention of clinicians and infection control specialists to their current antibiotic susceptibility pattern and how often specific pathogens are isolated [ 10].
Diversified bacteriological agents have been identified in different studies, and in ours the main pathogens were Enterobacteriaceae, followed by S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, being Proteus mirabilis the most common pathogen isolated.
The bacteriological success rates for the overall and for the gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens were comparable between the treatment groups at the 7-day follow-up visit (Table 3).
47 patients acquired 58 NIs (36.2% BSI, 20.5% pneumonia, 10.3% CRI and 10.3% UTI. There was no bacteriological documentation of NI in 22.5% of cases. NIs occured 4 days post burns. The most three isolated pathogens were: Acinetobacter spp. (31%), P. aeruginosa (22.5%) and extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (17%).
Third, because the median MIC of the pathogens was approximately 0.125 μg/ml, it is difficult to understand how CI could result in higher clinical cure and bacteriological response rates when compared with II.
These results were substantially different with respect to bacteriological findings in Sweden [ 15] where S. aureus (25%) was the principal pathogen in clinical cases and the most prevalent environmental pathogens were: coliforms (23%), Str.
A bacteriological diagnosis was confirmed when a pathogen was isolated from an uncontaminated blood culture or sputum specimen obtained on admission.
When no pathogen was identified in a patient receiving antibiotics prior to bacteriological sampling, an independent adjudication committee reviewed all charts to assess if the patient had a "high probability" or "low probability" for bacterial co-infection, based on clinical, radiological and biological results available.
