COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app