Potochylova V., Rudnieva K., Pokas О., Vyshniakova H.

MICROBIOLOGY

Scentific article

Wound is the most frequent primary cell of microbal contamination, ideal environment for a height and reproduction of microorganisms, that got for her and support an infectious process that prevents to cicatrization. Integrity of adherent leather covers, mucous membranes is thus violated and a semination of surface of wound is the microbiota of air, resident microbiota of employees of permanent establishment or microorganisms from the surface of adherent fabrics of patient. Aim of research of study of specific composition of microorganisms for surgical patients and determination of their sensitiveness to antibacterial preparations. An object and research methods. Occupied biological material, carried out on selective and differentially-diagnostic nourishing environments: 5% blood agar, environment of Endo, bile-salt agar, enterococcus agar, environment of Saburo, saccharine clear soup. Occupied carried out the quantitative method of the sectoral sowing after Gold. Authentication of the distinguished microorganisms was conducted to the kind and type of the generally accepted methods. The results of researches and their discussion. Were investigational 103 stamms of УПМ, abstracted from wounds for patients that were on treatment in the surgical separation of КНП КОР the “Kyiv regional clinical hospital”. Among the investigational stamms of S.aureus and CNS, abstracted from wounds for patients that were in the surgical separation of “Kyiv regional hospital”, the dangerous phenotypes of resistance (MRSA, MRCNS, GRSA, GRCNS, MLS – to the phenotype) are educed to most clinically to the important groups of antibiotics. Investigation of it is acquisition by the stamms of staphylococcuss of polyresistance (41,2±11,9% among S.aureus, 43,3±9,0% among CNS ). For the representatives of E. faecalis a most value for today has resistance to the glycopeptides – vancomycin and teicoplanin, because these antibiotics are one of not many effective variants for therapy of enterococci infections. Among investigational CNS it was educed by us 9 methicillin-resistant stamms (60,0±8,9%). a 1 stamm was resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin. The stamms of CNS are investigational by us at 60,0±8,9% of cases were proof to macrolides, in 30,0±8,4% – to clindamycin. MLS – a phenotype was educed in 26,7±8,1% of stamms. 43,3±9,0% stamms showed a sensitiveness to fluoroquinolones. Linezolid showed inhibitory I operate in 90,0±5,5% of cases. Conclusions by the Leading causative agents of wound infections for patients that were in the surgical separation of the “Kyiv regional hospital” there were staphylococcuss, – 45,6%, that were presented CNS (29,15%) and S.aureus (16,5%), the Most widespread types of causative agents were CNS (29,15%), S.aureus (16,5%) and E.coli (16,5%). Among S.aureus distinguished from surgical patients, considerable part of stamms is educed with methicillin-resistant by a phenotype (47,1±12,1%). In addition, educed stamms proof to preparations of reserve for therapy, MRSA: 11,8±7,8% stamms were proof to vancomycin and teicoplanin (GRSA). In 35,3±11,6% of stamms the combined firmness is educed to macrolides and lincosamines (MLS is a phenotype).

are a surgical infection, antibacterial preparations, firmness.

1. Fomin OO. Kharakterystyka biolohichnykh vlastyvostey mikroflory, vydilenoyi z ran postrazhdalykh v zoni ATO. Biomedical And Biosocial Antropology. 2016;26:136-40. [in Ukrainian].
2. Kucisec-Tepes N. Characteristics of war wound infection. Acta Med Croatica. 2006;60(4):353-63.
3. Calne S, editor. Identifying criteria for wound infection. Medical Education Partnership LTD. 2005;17.
4. Wound Management. Best practice guidelines in disaster situations. World Health Organisation. WHO/EHT/CPR 2005. 56.
5. Kingsley A. A proactive approach to wound infection. Nursing Standard. 2001;15:50-8.
6. Yildiz O, Alp E, Simsek S. Gunshot Wounds and Late Infection Yildiz. Turk J Med Sci. 2005;35:69-272.
7. Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Event. Procedure-associated Module. European Center for Disease Control. 2016 Jan;9.1-9.35.
8. Mariyevsʹkyy VF, Salmanov AH, Doan SI. Analiz etiolohichnoyi struktury zbudnykiv hniyno-zapalʹnykh infektsiy u khirurhichnykh statsionarakh Ukrayiny v 2008 r. Ukrayinsʹkyy zhurnal klinichnoyi ta laboratornoyi medytsyny. 2010;1(5):162-9. [in Ukrainian].
9. Pokas OV. Monitorynh etiolohichnoyi struktury ta antybiotykorezystentnosti osnovnykh zbudnykiv infektsiy oblasti khirurhichnoho vtruchannya. Laboratorna diahnostyka. 2011;1(55):21-6. [in Ukrainian].
10. Gordinskaya NA, Sabirova YeV, Abramova NV. Osobennosti vozbuditeley ranevoy infektsii u patsiyentov s termicheskoy travmoy. Meditsinskiy al’manakh. 2012;5(24):181-3. [in Russian].
11. Slotov AM, Sivakon’ SV. Osobennosti vozbuditeley ranevoy infektsii v travmatologicheskom statsionare. Vestnik Penzenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2013;2:65-9. [in Russian].
12. D’yachenko SV, Bobrovnikova MYu, Slobodenyuk YeV. Bakteriologicheskiy monitoring ranevykh infektsiy v mnogoprofil’nom khirurgicheskom statsionare. Tikhookeanskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal. 2015;1:80-2. [in Russian].
13. Potochylova VV, Babak SI. Uskladneni infektsiyi oblasti khirurhichnoho vtruchannya ta porivnyalʹna kharakterystyka chutlyvosti mikroorhanizmiv do antybiotykiv rezervu u viddilennyakh khirurhichnoho profilyu. Scientific Journal «ScienceRise». 2015;8/3(13):47-52. [in Ukrainian].
14. Gordinskaya NA, Sabirova YeV, Abramova NV. Znacheniye mikroorganizmov semeystva Enterobacteriaceae v etiologii ranevoy ozhogovoy infektsii. Fundamental’nyye issledovaniya. 2013;12:191-4. [in Russian].
15. Metodychni vkazivky MV 9.9.5-143-2007 «Vyznachennya chutlyvosti mikroorhanizmiv do antybakterialʹnykh preparativ». Kyyiv: 2007. 79 s. [in Ukrainian].
16. Black JA, Moland ES, Thomson KS. AmpC Disk Test for Detection of Plasmid-Mediated AmpC β-Lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae Lacking Chromosomal AmpC β-Lactamases. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005;43.7:3110-3.
17. Informatsiynyy lyst. Bakteriolohichnyy kontrolʹ pozhyvnykh seredovyshch: Informatsiynyy lyst № 05.4.1/1670. Kyyiv: 2000. 19 s. [in Ukrainian].
18. EUCAST guidelines for detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and/or epidemiological importance, Version 1.0, December 2013. Available from: http://www.eucast.org
19. Li L, Feng W, Zhang Z. Macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin resistance phenotypes and genotypes of coagulase-positive Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from bovine mastitis. BMC Veterinary Research. 2015;11:1-8.
20. Chuang Y-C, Wang J-T, Lin HY, Chang S-C. Daptomycin versus linezolid for treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2014;14:1-10.
21. O’Driscoll T, Crank CW. Vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections: epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and optimal management. Infection and Drug Resistance. 2015;8:217-30.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 2 (156), 2020 year, 244-248 pages, index UDK 579.61+616-008.87/-001.4+616.036.8/615.281.9

10.29254/2077-4214-2020-2-156-244-248