COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
CODIFI (Concordance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infection): a cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers in England.
BMJ Open 2018 January 32
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU).
DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England.
PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: clinically inappropriate to take either sample.
INTERVENTIONS: Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs.
RESULTS: 400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52608451.
DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England.
PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: clinically inappropriate to take either sample.
INTERVENTIONS: Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs.
RESULTS: 400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52608451.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Carvedilol, probably the β-blocker of choice for everyone with cirrhosis and portal hypertension: But not so fast!Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver 2023 June
Evidence-Based Guideline for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis.Nature Reviews. Rheumatology 2023 May 10
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app