Abstract
Infections remain a leading cause of death in burn patients. This is as a result of loss of the environmental barrier function of the skin predisposing these patients to microbial colonization leading to invasion. Therefore, reconstitution of the environmental barrier by debriding the devitalized tissue and wound closure with application of allograft versus autograft is of optimal importance.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Thermally Injured Patient
- Early Excision
- Burn Wound Infection
- Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
- Central Line-Associated Infections
- Sepsis
- Septic shock
1 Burn Wound Infections
1.1 Diagnosis and Treatment of Burn Wound Infections
1.1.1 Introduction
Infections remain a leading cause of death in burn patients. This is as a result of loss of the environmental barrier function of the skin predisposing these patients to microbial colonization leading to invasion. Therefore, reconstitution of the environmental barrier by debriding the devitalized tissue and wound closure with application of allograft versus autograft is of optimal importance.
Given that infections are a common complication of the thermally injured patient, early diagnosis, and treatment are of paramount importance. The pathophysiological progression of burn wound infection runs the spectrum from bacterial wound colonization to infection to invasive wound infection. The characteristics of each are as follows:
-
Bacterial colonization.
-
Bacterial levels <105.
-
Does not necessarily prevent wound healing.
-
-
Bacterial infection.
-
Bacterial levels >105.
-
Can result in impaired wound healing and graft failure.
-
Can lead to systemic infection.
-
-
Invasive wound infection.
-
Clinically can have separation of the eschar from wound bed.
-
Appearance of focal dark brown, black, or violaceous discoloration of the wound [1].
-
Presence of pyocyanin (green pigment) in subcutaneous fat.
-
Erythema, edema, pain, and warmth of the surrounding skin.
-
Associated with signs of systemic infection/sepsis and positive blood cultures and high mortality.
-
Of note there are particular clinical signs unique to fungal and viral infections. An unexpected and rapid separation of the eschar is characteristic of fungal infection [2], while vesicular lesions caused by HSV-1 can be found in healed or healing burn wounds [3].
1.2 Common Pathogens and Diagnosis
In general, the organisms causing burn wound infection/invasion have a chronological appearance. Initially, Gram-positive organisms are commonplace, while Gram-negative organisms become predominant after 5 days post-burn injury. Yeast and fungal colonization/infection follow, and finally multi-resistant organisms appear typically as a result of broad-spectrum antibiotics or inadequate burn excision or patient response to therapy [4].
As part of infection surveillance of burn patients, clinicians need to pay close attention to clinical signs of wound infection and rapidly confirm their diagnosis. There is some controversy as to the exact method of diagnosis, with some advocating for quantitative cultures—with >105 organisms per gram tissue being diagnostic of invasive infection [5]—and others arguing for histological examination as the only reliable method of determining invasive infection [6,7,8,9] since quantitative cultures are only positive in 50% of histological invasive wound infections [9]. The most common pathogens of burn wound invasion are MSSA, MRSA, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa species (Table 1).
In order to provide the thermally injured patient with adequate treatment, it is important to have knowledge of each institution’s bacterial flora as they vary with geography and change over time [10, 11].
Fungal infections have increased in frequency with the use of topical agents, and the incidence of mycotic invasions has doubled. Even though the burn wound is the most commonly infected site, there is an increasing trend towards systemic and organ-specific fungal infections [12].
The diagnosis of fungal infection is complicated by delay in their identification as cultures typically require 7–14 days [13], and their clinical presentation is similar to low-grade bacterial infections. Diagnosis and duration of treatment can be aided by arterial blood samples as well as retinal examination.
1.3 Clinical Management
Early excision and wound coverage is the mainstay of modern burn care and the best method of minimizing burn wound infection. Any delay in the surgical treatment of burn wounds leads to increased bacterial loads, and any wound with bacterial counts exceeding 105 organisms per gram of tissue can develop burn wound sepsis even after burn wound excision [9].
The treatment of burn wound infections involves both local and systemic therapy.
1.3.1 Local
-
Early excision of burn eschar (for unexcised burns).
-
Aggressive excision of necrotic/infected tissue.
-
Use of topical agents (Table 2) to minimize bacterial colonization [14].
The use of any particular topical agent should be based on suspected organism in the wound but is at times guided by the availability of the agent on hospital formulary. These are not a substitute for aggressive surgical management of wound infections.
1.3.2 Systemic
-
Use of systemic antibiotics and antifungals should be reserved for patients demonstrating systemic signs of sepsis (see ABA criteria for definition of sepsis (Box 1)).
-
Use of systemic prophylaxis can reduce the rate of surgical wound infections but can increase bacterial antimicrobial resistance [15].
-
The choice of antimicrobials needs to be based on each institution’s antibiogram and tailored specifically to the organism (Table 3), i.e., narrow the coverage as soon as sensitivities become available.
Box 1 ABA Criteria for Definition of Sepsis [16]
Includes at least three of the following:
Temperature > 39° or < 36.5 °C.
Progressive tachycardia
-
Adults >110 bpm.
-
Children >2 SD above age-specific norms (85% age-adjusted max heart rate).
Progressive tachypnea
-
Adults >25 bpm not ventilated. Minute ventilation >12 L/min ventilated.
-
Children >2 SD above age-specific norms (85% age-adjusted max respiratory rate).
Thrombocytopenia (will not apply until 3 days after initial resuscitation)
-
Adults <100,000/mcl.
-
Children >2 SD below age-specific norms.
Hyperglycemia (in the absence of preexisting diabetes mellitus)
-
Untreated plasma glucose >200 mg/dL or equivalent mM/L.
-
Insulin resistance—examples include:
-
>7 units of insulin/h intravenous drip (adults)
-
Significant resistance to insulin (>25% increase in insulin requirements over 24 h).
Inability to continue enteral feedings >24 h
-
Abdominal distension.
-
Enteral feeding intolerance (residual >150 mL/h in children or two times feeding rate in adults).
-
Uncontrollable diarrhea (>2500 mL/day for adults or > 400 mL/day in children).
In addition, it is required that a documented infection (defined below) is identified:
-
Culture-positive infection.
-
Pathologic tissue source identified.
-
Clinical response to antimicrobials.
Infections of burn wounds are typically found in patients with burns exceeding 20% TBSA and most commonly in the lower extremities [17]. However, there are no specific organisms associated with the site of infection [17]. Moreover, these infections can have dire consequences:
-
Conversion of superficial to deeper burn wounds.
-
Systemic infection and sepsis.
-
Graft loss requiring further surgery for regrafting.
-
Increased hospital length of stay.
-
Conversion of donor sites requiring surgical debridement and grafting.
-
Increased mortality, more so with yeast and fungal infection.
-
Yeast species (Candida) are typically sensitive to fluconazole, while fungal infections would most likely require treatment with amphotericin or caspofungin (the use is for systemic infection, as wound infections require surgical debridement).
-
Viral infections (typically HSV) require treatment with acyclovir.
1.4 Conclusion
Burn wound infection is an all too common complication of the thermally injured patient. These infections tend to have a chronological appearance and depend on burn size, depth, length of hospital stay, and geographical location. The common organisms remain Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas; however, more resistant strains are becoming prevalent. The clinician needs to be vigilant with surveillance of burn wounds and institute aggressive treatment of wound infection once clinical signs appear before systemic illness sets in. It is of utmost importance to have ongoing assessment of the unique flora of each institution in order to better utilize systemic therapy.
2 Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) as defined by CDC (Center for Diseases Control) is an infection that occurs in a mechanically ventilated patient with an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube (traditionally >48 h after hospital admission) [18, 19]. The diagnosis of VAP in the thermally injured patient can be challenging, as fever, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and tachypnea can be present in these patients without infection. The sources of bacteria are typically the oropharynx and upper gastrointestinal tract [20,21,22,23,24]. The organisms also have a temporal pattern, community-acquired organisms (Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenza) are dominant in the early-phase VAP and Gram-negative and multi-resistant organisms (i.e., MRSA) are the common pathogens in late-stage VAP.
Regardless of the organisms, early antimicrobial treatment, guided towards the likely organism based on the onset of VAP (early vs. late) is beneficial in the overall outcome of the patients [25,26,27,28,29,30]. These broad-spectrum antimicrobials would need to be de-escalated as cultures and sensitivities become available [31,32,33].
As VAP is an increasing common complication with significant consequences, VAP prevention strategies need to be implemented and ABA guidelines (Box 2) utilized to improve overall patient outcome.
Box 2 American Burn Association Practice Guidelines for Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) in Burn Patients [34]
-
Mechanically ventilated burn patients are at high risk for developing VAP, with the presence of inhalation injury as a unique risk factor in this patient group.
-
VAP prevention strategies should be used in mechanically ventilated burn patients.
-
Clinical diagnosis of VAP can be challenging in mechanically ventilated burn patients where systemic inflammation and acute lung injury are prevalent. Therefore, a quantitative strategy, when available, is the preferable method to confirm the diagnosis of VAP.
-
An 8-day course of targeted antibiotic therapy is generally sufficient to treat VAP; however, resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative bacilli may require longer treatment duration.
3 Central Line-Associated Infections
Central catheters inserted into veins and arteries are common practice in the management of the critically ill thermally injured patient and can be associated with infection rates from 1.5 to 20% [35,36,37]. The introduction of central line insertion bundles by CDC has dramatically reduced these infections [38, 39]. These measures include:
-
Hand washing.
-
Full-barrier precautions during line insertion.
-
Cleaning the skin with chlorhexidine.
-
Avoiding the femoral site if possible.
-
Removing unnecessary catheters.
In burn patients, some unique features complicate the use of the central catheters. Typically, there are associated burn wounds in close proximity, and it has been shown that catheters within 25cm2 of an open wound are at an increased risk of colonization and infection [40]. Other risk factors associated with increased rate of infection are [41]:
-
Age (extremes of age have more infection).
-
Sex (female).
-
%TBSA burned
-
% full-thickness burns
-
Presence of smoke inhalation.
-
Type of burn (flame).
-
Number of surgical procedures performed.
-
Larger number of CVCs.
-
Longer insertion of the catheter.
-
Wound burn infection or colonization.
-
Insertion of the venous catheter in emergency situation.
-
Longer stay in hospital.
-
More operations.
-
Insertion site near the burns wound.
The diagnosis of catheter-related infection (CRI) is based on clinical and microbiological criteria (see Table 4). Following the diagnosis of CRI, prompt treatment is essential as delay in catheter removal or in the start of appropriate antimicrobial therapy can result in increased morbidity and mortality [43].
Currently, there is no clear evidence that routine exchange of lines decreases the rate of catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSI) [44]; however, all catheters need to be removed once a CRBSI is diagnosed or once they are no longer needed.
As with all severe infections, empiric antimicrobial treatment should be initiated immediately and should take into account the severity of the illness, the site of catheter insertion, and the institutions’ antibiogram [45]. These broad-spectrum antimicrobials need to be de-escalated after identification and susceptibility testing of the microorganism.
4 Guidelines for Sepsis Resuscitation
As described in the previous segments of this chapter, infections in the thermally injured patient have dire consequences. Sepsis occurs at a rate of 8–42.5% in burn patients with a mortality of 28–65% [46]. Much research has been conducted in the optimal management of the septic patient. The following Table 5 summarizes the guidelines as recommended by the surviving sepsis campaign committee originally published in 2008 [47] and later revised in 2016 [48]. Only the strong recommendations with high level of evidence are included. This is to be used as a tool to guide the delivery of optimal clinical care for patients with sepsis and septic shock.
The ABA criteria for definition of sepsis (see Box 1) in the burn patients have been established. However, Mann-Salinas and colleagues have challenged the predictive ability of ABA criteria demonstrating that their multivariable model (heart rate > 130, MAP <60 mmHg, base deficit <−6 mEq/L, temperature < 36 °C, use of vasoactive medications, and glucose >150 mg/dL) is capable of outperforming the ABA model [49]. In addition, the new Sepsis-3 clinical criteria for identification of sepsis and septic shock [50,51,52] have been developed, which defines sepsis and septic shock as follows:
-
Sepsis—Suspected or documented infection and an acute increase of >2 SOFA points.
-
Septic Shock—Sepsis and vasopressor therapy needed to elevate MAP >65 mmHg and lactate >2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) despite adequate fluid resuscitation.
More recently, the publication by Stanojcic and colleagues as well as Yan and colleagues demonstrated that the Sepsis-3 had superior sensitivity in predicting sepsis in comparison to Mann-Salinas and ABA criteria for sepsis; however, none of the aforementioned had the accuracy to be a stand-alone diagnostic tool within the burn population [53, 54].
References
Pruitt BA, Lindberg RB, McManus WF, Mason AD (1983) Current approach to prevention and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in burned patients. Rev Infect Dis 5(Suppl 5):S889–S897
Pruitt BA (1984) The diagnosis and treatment of infection in the burn patient. Burns Incl Therm Inj 11(2):79–91
Foley FD, Greenawald KA, Nash G, Pruitt BA (1970) Herpesvirus infection in burned patients. N Engl J Med 282(12):652–656
Church D, Elsayed S, Reid O, Winston B, Lindsay R (2006) Burn wound infections. Mol Biol Rep 19:403–434
Heggers JP, Robson MC (eds) (1991) Quantitative bacteriology: its role in the armamentarium of the surgeon, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
McManus AT, Kim SH, McManus WF, Mason AD, Pruitt BA (1987) Comparison of quantitative microbiology and histopathology in divided burn-wound biopsy specimens. Arch Surg 122(1):74–76
Pruitt BA, McManus AT (1992) The changing epidemiology of infections in burn patients. World J Surg 16(1):57–67
Pruitt BA, McManus AT, Kim SH, Goodwin CW (1998) Burn wound infections: current status. World J Surg 22(2):135–145
Barret JP, Herndon DN (2003) Effects of burn wound excision on bacterial colonization and invasion. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(2):744–750
Guggenheim M, Zbinden R, Handschin AE, Gohritz A, Altintas MA, Giovanoli P (2009) Changes in bacterial isolates from burn wounds and their antibiograms: a 20-year study (1986–2005). Burns 35(4):553–560
Rezaei E, Safari H, Naderinasab M, Aliakbarian H (2011) Common pathogens in burn wound and changes in their drug sensitivity. Burns 37(5):805–807
Sheridan RL (2005) Sepsis in pediatric burn patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med 6(3 Suppl):S112–S119
Becker WK, Cioffi WG Jr, McManus AT, Kim SH, McManus WF, Mason AD et al (1991) Fungal burn wound infection. A 10-year experience. Arch Surg 126(1):44–48
Greenhalgh DG (2009) Topical antimicrobial agents for burn wounds. Clin Plast Surg 36(4):597–606
Avni T, Levcovich A, Ad-El DD, Leibovici L, Paul M (2010) Prophylactic antibiotics for burns patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c241
Greenhalgh DG, The American Burn Association Consensus Conference on Burn Sepsis and Infection Group et al (2007) American burn association consensus conference to define sepsis and infection in burns. J Burn Care Res 28(6):776–790
Posluszny JA Jr, Conrad P, Halerz M, Shankar R, Gamelli RL (2011) Surgical burn wound infections and their clinical implications. J Burn Care Res 32:324–333
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004) Guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated pneumonia, 2003: recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Recomm Rep 53:1–36
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008) The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) manual: patient safety component protocol 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/nhsn/NHSN_Manual_PatientSafetyProtocol_CURRENT.pdf; Internet; Accessed 14 Dec 2008
Cook D, Walter S, Cook R et al (1998) Incidence of and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Ann Intern Med 129:433–440
Bahrani-Mougeot F, Paster B, Coleman S et al (2007) Molecular analysis of oral and respiratory bacterial species associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol 45:1588–1593
DeRiso AJ II, Ladowski JS, Dillon TA, Justice JW, Peterson AC (1996) Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the incidence of total nosocomial respiratory infection and non-prophylactic systemic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery. Chest 109:1556–1561
Seguin P, Tanguy M, Laviolle B, Tirel O, Mallédant Y (2006) Effect of oropharyngeal decontamination by povidone-iodine on ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with head trauma. Crit Care Med 34:1514–1519
Bonten MJ, Gaillard CA, de Leeuw PW, Stobberingh EE (1997) Role of colonization of the upper intestinal tract in the pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 24:309–319
Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH (2002) Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 122:262–268
Garnacho-Montero J, Garcia-Garmendia JL, Barrero-Almodovar A et al (2003) Impact of the outcome of adequate empirical antibiotherapy in patients admitted to the ICU for sepsis. Crit Care Med 31:2742–2751
Leone M, Burgoin A, Cambon S, Dubuc M, Albanèse J, Martin C (2003) Empirical antimicrobial therapy of septic shock patients: adequacy and impact on the outcome. Crit Care Med 31:462–467
Luna CM, Vujacich P, Niederman MS et al (1997) Impact of BAL data on the therapy and outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 111:676–685
Rello J, Gallego M, Mariscal D, Soñora R, Valles J (1997) The value of routine microbial investigation in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156:196–200
Dupont H, Mentec H, Sollet JP, Bleichner G (2001) Impact of appropriateness of initial antibiotic therapy on the outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 27:355–362
Alvarez-Lerma F (1996) Modification of empiric antibiotic treatment in patients with pneumonia acquired in the intensive care unit. ICU-acquired Pneumonia Study Group. Intensive Care Med 22:387–394
Ibrahim EH, Ward S, Sherman G, Schaiff R, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH (2001) Experience with a clinical guideline for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 29:1109–1115
Namias N, Samiian L, Nino D et al (2000) Incidence and susceptibility of pathogenic bacteria vary between intensive care units within a single hospital: implications for empiric antibiotic strategies. J Trauma 49:638–645
Mosier MJ, Pham TN (2009) American burn association practice guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in burn patients. J Burn Care Res 30:910–928
Franceschi D, Gerding R, Phillips G, Fratianne R (1989) Risk factors associated with intravascular catheter infections in burned patients: a prospective, randomized study. J Trauma 29:811–816
Goldestein A, Weber J, Sheridan R (1997) Femoral venous access is safe in burned children, an analysis of 224 catheters. J Pediatr 130:442–446
Lesseva M (1998) Central venous catheter-related bacteremia in burn patients. Scand J Infect Dis 30:585–589
Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA et al (2004) Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 32:2014–2020
Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S et al (2006) An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 355:2725–2732
Ramos GE, Bolgiani AN, Patiño O, Prezzavento GE, Guastavino P, Durlach R, Fernandez Canigia LB, Fortunato Benaim F (2002) Catheter infection risk related to the distance between insertion site and burned area. J Burn Care Rehabil 23:266–271
Echevarria-Guanilo ME, Ciofi-Silva CL, Canini SR, Farina JA, Rossi LA (2009) Preventing infections due to intravascular catheters in burn victims. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther 7(9):1081–1086
Pagani JL, Eggimann P (2008) Management of catheter-related infection. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther 6(1):31–37
Warren DK, Quadir WW, Hollenbeak CS, Elward AM, Cox MJ, Fraser VJ (2006) Attributable cost of catheter-associated bloodstream infections among intensive care patients in a nonteaching hospital. Crit Care Med 34(8):2084–2089
O’Mara MS, Reed NL, Palmieri TL, Greenhalgh DG (2007) Central venous catheter infections in burn patients with scheduled catheter exchange and replacement. J Surg Res 142(2):341–350
Lorente L, Jimenez A, Iribarren JL, Jimenez JJ, Martin MM, Mora ML (2006) The microorganism responsible for central venous catheter related bloodstream infection depends on catheter site. Intensive Care Med 32(9):1449–1450
Mann EA, Baun MM, Meininger JC, Wade CE (2012) Comparison of mortality associated with sepsis in the burn, trauma, and general intensive care unit patient: a systematic review of the literature. Shock 37(1):4–16
Dellinger RP, International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee et al (2008) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 36(1):296–327
Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R et al (2016) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 45:486–552
Mann-Salinas EA, Baun MM, Meininger JC, Murray CK, Aden JK, Wolf SE, Wade CE (2013) Novel predictors of sepsis outperform the American burn association sepsis criteria in the burn intensive care unit patient. J Burn Care Res 34(1):31–43
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M et al (2016) The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:801–810
Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, Rea TD, Scherag A et al (2016) Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis for The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:762–774
Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy LM, Seymour CW, Liu VX, Deutschman CS et al (2016) Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock for The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:775–787
Stanojcic M, Vinaik R, Jeschke MG (2018) Status and challenges of predicting and diagnosing sepsis in burn patient. Surg Infect 19(2):168–175
Yan J, Hill WF, Rehou S, Pinto R, Shahrokhi S, Jeschke MG (2018) Sepsis criteria versus clinical diagnosis of sepsis in burn patients: a validation of current sepsis scores. Surgery 164(6):1241–1245
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shahrokhi, S. (2021). Infections in Burns. In: Jeschke, M.G., Kamolz, LP., Shahrokhi, S. (eds) Burn Care and Treatment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39193-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39193-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39192-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39193-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)