ABSTRACT

Background: Rise in antibiotic resistance due to injudicious use of antibiotics is worrying. Our clinicians routinely start empirical therapy and discharge patients on same treatment without doing culture /sensitivity. This practice leads to over and misuse of antibiotics. To motivate the clinicians and build their faith on culture reports we started this comparative study in which empirical therapy started by the clinicians is compared with actual sensitivity results.

Aim: By highlighting the gap between empirical therapy and actual antibiotic susceptibility pattern and motivating consultants that empirical therapy should be based on local culture sensitivity pattern.

Methodology: Pus samples were collected aseptically from infected surgical sites. A profoma was filled with detailed clinical history and empirical therapy prescribed. Culture/ sensitivity results were noted. Results of sensitivity were compared with empirical therapy prescribed.

Results: A total 110 patients were included in the study. Out of total samples growth was obtained in 84 (76.4%) samples while remaining samples 26 (23.6%) shown no growth. Empirical therapy was in accordance in 10 (11.9%) patients while it was not in 74 (88.1%) patients. Gram negative organisms were more common 64/84 (76%) as compared to Gram positive organisms 12/84 (14.5%), while remaining 08/84 (9.5%) grown both gram positive and negative organisms.

Conclusion: Empirical therapy is not in accordance with actual sensitivity pattern.

Key words: Antibiotics, antibiogram, definitive therapy, empirical therapy.