Improved detection of clinically relevant wound bacteria using autofluorescence image-guided sampling in diabetic foot ulcers.

Kathryn Ottolino-Perry, Emilie Chamma, Kristina M Blackmore, Liis Lindvere-Teene, Danielle Starr, Kim Tapang, Cheryl F Rosen, Bethany Pitcher, Tony Panzarella, Ron Linden, Ralph S DaCosta
Author Information
  1. Kathryn Ottolino-Perry: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  2. Emilie Chamma: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  3. Kristina M Blackmore: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  4. Liis Lindvere-Teene: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  5. Danielle Starr: MolecuLight, Inc., Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  6. Kim Tapang: Hyperbaric Medicine, Judy Dan Research & Treatment Centre, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  7. Cheryl F Rosen: Department of Dermatology, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  8. Bethany Pitcher: Department of Biostatistics, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  9. Tony Panzarella: Department of Biostatistics, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  10. Ron Linden: Hyperbaric Medicine, Judy Dan Research & Treatment Centre, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
  11. Ralph S DaCosta: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.

Abstract

Clinical wound assessment involves microbiological swabbing of wounds to identify and quantify bacterial species, and to determine microbial susceptibility to antibiotics. The Levine swabbing technique may be suboptimal because it samples only the wound bed, missing other diagnostically relevant areas of the wound, which may contain clinically significant bacteria. Thus, there is a clinical need to improve the reliability of microbiological wound sampling. To address this, a handheld portable autofluorescence (AF) imaging device that detects bacteria in real time, without contrast agents, was developed. Here, we report the results of a clinical study evaluating the use of real-time AF imaging to visualise bacteria in and around the wound bed and to guide swabbing during the clinical assessment of diabetic foot ulcers, compared with the Levine technique. We investigated 33 diabetic foot ulcers (n = 31 patients) and found that AF imaging more accurately identified the presence of moderate and/or heavy bacterial load compared with the Levine technique (accuracy 78% versus 52%, P = 0·048; adjusted diagnostic odds ratio 7·67, P < 0·00022 versus 3·07, P = 0·066) and maximised the effectiveness of bacterial load sampling, with no significant impact on clinical workflow. AF imaging may help clinicians better identify the wound areas with clinically significant bacteria, and maximise sampling of treatment-relevant pathogens.

Keywords

References

  1. Int Rev Cytol. 1996;169:151-81 [PMID: 8843654]
  2. Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):345-51 [PMID: 10877288]
  3. Wound Repair Regen. 2006 Sep-Oct;14(5):548-57 [PMID: 17014666]
  4. Diabetes Care. 2009 Jan;32(1):117-9 [PMID: 18835949]
  5. Int Wound J. 2016 Aug;13(4):449-53 [PMID: 25907362]
  6. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 19;10(3):e0116623 [PMID: 25790480]
  7. J Invest Dermatol. 2010 Jan;130(1):38-48 [PMID: 19626034]
  8. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2008 Mar;7(1):32-5 [PMID: 18372267]
  9. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2001 Jan;47(1):40-7 [PMID: 11889655]
  10. Periodontol 2000. 2000 Feb;22:44-50 [PMID: 11276515]
  11. Stat Med. 1997 Jun 15;16(11):1263-81 [PMID: 9194271]
  12. Enzyme. 1973;16(1):57-64 [PMID: 4208581]
  13. Ann Med. 2002;34(6):419-27 [PMID: 12523497]
  14. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2004 Apr;17(2):91-6 [PMID: 15021046]
  15. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001 Apr;14(2):244-69 [PMID: 11292638]
  16. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Jun;117(7 Suppl):1e-S-32e-S [PMID: 16801750]
  17. Int Wound J. 2016 Oct;13(5):880-91 [PMID: 25581688]
  18. Prof Nurse. 2003 Feb;18(6):338-43 [PMID: 12630246]
  19. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2001 Oct;47(10):44-9 [PMID: 11890078]
  20. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013 May;26(5):211-9 [PMID: 23591095]
  21. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Nov;56(11):1129-35 [PMID: 14615004]
  22. Photochem Photobiol. 2003 Oct;78(4):384-92 [PMID: 14626667]
  23. BMJ. 2002 Jan 19;324(7330):160-3 [PMID: 11799036]
  24. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):20-1 [PMID: 16477159]
  25. Int Wound J. 2007 Jun;4(2):156-61 [PMID: 17651230]
  26. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1999 Aug;45(8):23-7, 29-40; quiz 41-2 [PMID: 10655866]
  27. Int Wound J. 2011 Apr;8(2):176-85 [PMID: 21303456]
  28. Diabetes Care. 2007 Feb;30(2):378-80 [PMID: 17259515]
  29. JAMA. 2012 Feb 8;307(6):605-11 [PMID: 22318282]
  30. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2005 Jan;51(1):28-34 [PMID: 15695833]
  31. Annu Rev Phys Chem. 1996;47:555-606 [PMID: 8930102]
  32. Crit Care Nurs Q. 1997 Nov;20(3):44-59 [PMID: 9392756]
  33. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1985;193:155-9 [PMID: 4096295]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Bacteria
Bacterial Load
Diabetic Foot
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Optical Imaging
Reproducibility of Results
Specimen Handling
Wound Infection
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0woundbacteriasamplingimagingLevinetechniqueclinicalAFfootulcersswabbingbacterialmayclinicallysignificantdiabeticClinicalassessmentmicrobiologicalidentifybedrelevantareasautofluorescencecomparedloadversusinvolveswoundsquantifyspeciesdeterminemicrobialsusceptibilityantibioticssuboptimalsamplesmissingdiagnosticallycontainThusneedimprovereliabilityaddresshandheldportabledevicedetectsrealtimewithoutcontrastagentsdevelopedreportresultsstudyevaluatingusereal-timevisualisearoundguideinvestigated33n = 31patientsfoundaccuratelyidentifiedpresencemoderateand/orheavyaccuracy78%52%P = 0·048adjusteddiagnosticoddsratio7·67P < 0·000223·07P = 0·066maximisedeffectivenessimpactworkflowhelpcliniciansbettermaximisetreatment-relevantpathogensImproveddetectionusingimage-guidedAutofluorescencesignssymptomsDiabeticMicrobiological

Similar Articles

Cited By