Next Article in Journal
The Distribution and Influencing Factors of Hypolithic Microbial Communities in the Hexi Corridor
Next Article in Special Issue
Chlamydia Infection Remodels Host Cell Mitochondria to Alter Energy Metabolism and Subvert Apoptosis
Previous Article in Journal
SARS-CoV-2 Systemic Effects: New Clues
Previous Article in Special Issue
Paediatric Asthma and the Microbiome: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/microorganisms11051210
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Relative Abundance and Detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Chronic Wound Infections Globally

by
Sang Phan
,
Cafrey He Feng
,
Raymond Huang
,
Zeng X. Lee
,
Yer Moua
,
Olivia J. Phung
and
Justin R. Lenhard
*
College of Pharmacy, California Northstate University, Elk Grove, CA 95757, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(5), 1210; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051210
Submission received: 31 March 2023 / Revised: 27 April 2023 / Accepted: 29 April 2023 / Published: 5 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Review Papers in Medical Microbiology 2023)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a difficult-to-treat pathogen that is frequently involved with chronic wound infections. Here, we conducted a literature search of world-wide studies published between 2005 and 2022 that described the microbiological profiles of chronic wound infections. For each continent, a hierarchy of pathogens was created to define the organisms that were most frequently isolated in each region. Except for South America, P. aeruginosa was the second most common organism in each major continent, with Staphylococcus aureus being the most abundant pathogen overall. When individual countries were evaluated, P. aeruginosa was the most frequently isolated organism in several Southeast Asia nations including India and Malaysia. P. aeruginosa was less commonly isolated from diabetic foot infections in North America, Europe, and Africa in comparison to other types of chronic wound infections. Additionally, the Levine wound swab technique may be a quick and painless way to isolate P. aeruginosa from wound infections, but the isolation of P. aeruginosa does not seem to be an informative predictor of the patient’s clinical course. A multivariate risk assessment that accounts for the regional frequency of P. aeruginosa isolation may be an appropriate way to guide empiric management of chronic wound infections.

1. Introduction

There are a variety of wounds that are vulnerable to infection from pathogenic bacteria. Acute wounds are often precipitated by an external breach of the patient’s skin and include lacerations, surgical incisions, burns, and traumatic injuries [1]. In contrast, chronic wounds are created by prolonged disruption to the barrier functionality of the patient’s skin, which is typically the result of comorbidities such as diabetes and peripheral vascular disease that compromise the maintenance and healing of dermal tissue. Diabetic foot infections and infected decubitus ulcers represent two of the most clinically relevant chronic wound infections. Although there are a diverse number of organisms that may cause chronic wound infections, polymicrobial infections often involve Gram-positive cocci, Gram-negative rods, and anaerobic bacteria [1,2,3]. Among the Gram-negative aerobes responsible for chronic wound infections, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most notorious pathogens due to the limited number of treatment options [4,5].
Despite being implicated in chronic wound infections, the significance of detecting P. aeruginosa from a patient’s infected wound remains controversial [6]. Some clinicians have hypothesized that P. aeruginosa may colonize the wound space and its eradication is not necessary for a chronic wound to heal, whereas a competing proposal states that P. aeruginosa is capable of severely damaging tissue and merits directed antibacterial therapy. In support of the latter belief, numerous studies have observed that P. aeruginosa virulence factors alter the ability of a wound to heal [7,8,9,10,11]. P. aeruginosa also possesses a complex relationship with other pathogens that cohabitate the same site of infection, and the organism may enhance the virulence of other pathogens [12,13], alter the pharmacodynamics of antibacterials directed at other organisms [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], and influence the structure of polymicrobial biofilms [13,22].
The optimal strategy for approaching pseudomonal wound infections is further complicated by both the difficulty of empirically determining if a chronic wound infection involves P. aeruginosa and also the ambiguity of interpreting clinical microbiology cultures obtained from wound swabs. High severity infections, exposure of lower extremities to water, and residence in a warmer region have all been posited as positive associations with the presence of P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections [2,3,23]. In addition, the region of the world has been loosely tied to the likeliness of encountering P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections, with the Eastern Hemisphere or Asia and Africa specifically being identified as areas with a high prevalence of P. aeruginosa [23,24]. When available, a deep tissue biopsy may increase the likeliness of detecting P. aeruginosa from a wound, but the invasive nature of obtaining deep tissue samples limits the technique to patients that are already receiving debridement or are at low risk for the spread of infection after tissue removal [1,2,3,23]. Although the clinical utility and proper technique for obtaining wound swabs are subjects of debate, many institutions continue to use wound swabs to inform antibacterial selection.
The current review seeks to analyze the recent literature to determine the relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections based on the region of the world. The review also evaluates different techniques used to detect P. aeruginosa from chronic wound infections and assesses the associations between P. aeruginosa and clinical outcomes. The results of the analysis are intended to provide insight into clinical decision making regarding the management of chronic wound infections.

2. Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify studies that evaluated the relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections. The search terms “chronic wound microbiology” and “pseudomonas diabetic foot” were applied between January 2005 and December 2022. Additional studies were added at the discretion of the authors. References were included in this review if they were studies conducted in human subjects and reported values related to the relative abundance of microorganisms isolated from chronic wound infections. Studies that reported on the techniques used to isolate P. aeruginosa from chronic wound infections and investigations that evaluated risk factors for P. aeruginosa involvement with wound infections were also included. Based on the study, P. aeruginosa detection may have been mediated through a variety of wound culturing techniques or through rapid diagnostics such as PCR. Data were extracted in a tabular format and qualitatively assessed.
The ranking of the most commonly encountered microorganisms in each continent and country represented by at least one reference was determined by collating the relative abundance of the pathogens reported in all the studies conducted in the region. For example, if a certain microorganism was the most abundant organism in the majority of the studies in a specific geographic region, it was determined to be most abundant for that region, and so on. The relative abundance of each pathogen was also determined for the subset of studies that investigated diabetic foot infections specifically.
In addition to determining the relative abundance of each pathogen, the frequency of P. aeruginosa isolation was estimated for each continent. Depending on the study, the frequency of P. aeruginosa isolation may have been reported based on the total number of patients, the number of positive cultures, or the number of total isolates. Due to the variability with how study results were reported, the frequency of isolation reported by the authors was used for each study in our analysis and readers are referred to individual studies for specific reporting information. If a study only reported on Pseudomonas species, then P. aeruginosa was assumed to be the dominant specie.

3. Prevalence of P. aeruginosa in Wound Infections by Region of the World

3.1. North America

There were 15 studies identified from North America that described the microbiology of chronic wound infections (Figure 1) [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The majority of the studies corresponded to patient populations within the United States of America, and the most commonly isolated pathogen across the entire continent was S. aureus. P. aeruginosa was the second most commonly isolated organism, with a range of detection of 4.5–28% (median ~15%). Only four studies were conducted in the outpatient setting, whereas the majority of the investigations focused on inpatients. The investigation by Wolcott et al. included the largest isolate collection, which was obtained from 2963 patients with chronic wounds [33]. In the study, P. aeruginosa was detected in 25% of samples and was the second most prevalent pathogen behind S. aureus. The researchers also observed that P. aeruginosa was relatively more abundant in venous leg ulcers and decubitus ulcers in comparison to diabetic foot ulcers and nonhealing surgical wounds.
Of the 15 studies that corresponded to wound infections, six studies focused exclusively on patients with diabetic foot infections (Figure 2) [34,35,36,37,38,39]. Five studies evaluated patients from the United States of America and had a median detection of P. aeruginosa of 14.5%, whereas the single study from Mexico observed P. aeruginosa involvement with only 7% of infections. Overall, P. aeruginosa was the third most prevalent organism in North American diabetic foot infections, but the pathogen was still the most commonly encountered gram-negative organism. The largest evaluation of diabetic foot infections was conducted by Henig et al. who assessed patients who were admitted to the Detroit Medical Center in the United States of America [35]. The definition of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) used by the study authors included specific drug-resistant phenotypes of certain pathogenic bacteria, as well as any antimicrobial susceptibility profile of P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumanii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Of the 648 patients included in the study, MDROs were detected in 346 patients. The second most common MDRO was P. aeruginosa (behind methicillin-resistant S. aureus), which was detected in 26% of patients with MDROs. P. aeruginosa was also the most common MDRO recovered from polymicrobial infections.

3.2. South America

Three studies from Brazil [40,41,42], one analysis from Chile [43], one investigation from Guyana [44], and an evaluation from Peru [45] were retrieved in the literature search for a total of six South American wound infection studies (Figure 1). Although S. aureus and P. aeruginosa were separately identified as the most commonly isolated organisms in two studies each, P. aeruginosa was more frequently reported as the second most abundant pathogen, which resulted in P. aeruginosa being the most prevalent organism in South American wound infections in the current review. The lowest rate of P. aeruginosa isolation was observed in a Peruvian study that observed 6% of 75 chronic wound infections involved either Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter species [45]. In contrast, a Brazilian investigation of chronic leg ulcerations isolated P. aeruginosa from 29% of the patients with infected ulcers [40]. The authors also observed that P. aeruginosa was the most common organism that was present in non-infected ulcerations. When all South American studies were aggregated, the median rate of P. aeruginosa isolation was ~17%.
Two studies in Brazil and the investigation in Guyana evaluated diabetic foot infections specifically (Figure 2) [41,42,44]. In the three studies, the rate of P. aeruginosa isolation from wound infections were 12%, 18.8%, and 19.6%, respectively. The largest study was conducted by Cardoso et al. who observed that P. aeruginosa was the most commonly isolated organism from 189 diabetic foot infections with a frequency of isolation of 19.6% [42]. P. aeruginosa was also the most commonly isolated organism in a Guyanese study that evaluated 183 diabetic foot infections [44], whereas P. aeruginosa was the fourth most common pathogen in a Brazilian evaluation of 99 patients with diabetic foot infections [41].

3.3. Europe

A total of 23 studies were identified that described the microbiology of chronic wound infections in Europe. Germany contributed four studies [46,47,48,49], and three separate studies were conducted within Denmark [50,51,52], Italy [53,54,55], the United Kingdom [56,57,58], Poland [59,60,61], and Turkey [62,63,64]. France [65], Portugal [66], the Republic of Slovenia [67], and Sweden [68] each contributed a single investigation. S. aureus was the most frequently encountered pathogen in Europe followed by P. aeruginosa, which was the most prevalent organism in three studies [61,65,67] and the second most abundant pathogen in the majority of the remaining studies. The only studies that corresponded to France and Slovenia reported P. aeruginosa as the common organism isolated from wound infections [65,67]. A study by Kwiecińska-Piróg et al. evaluated a large collection of 1142 bacterial cultures from wound infections in Poland and found that P. aeruginosa was the second most common pathogen and was associated with 35% of the positive wound cultures [59]. In addition, 75% of the wound infections were polymicrobial, and the two most common bacterial duos were P. aeruginosa cultured with either S. aureus or P. mirabilis. Overall, the median rate of P. aeruginosa isolation was 23% in Europe.
Six European studies focused specifically on diabetic foot infections. Half of the investigations took place in Turkey [62,63,64], whereas two studies were conducted within the United Kingdom [56,57] and a single study was included from Portugal [66]. The three studies from Turkey all reported that P. aeruginosa was the second or third most common pathogen in diabetic foot infections with a prevalence of P. aeruginosa that ranged from 17.3–19% [62,63,64]. The prevalence of P. aeruginosa in the two studies from the United Kingdom was 6.1% and 8.6% [56,57], respectively, whereas P. aeruginosa was present in 11.4% of the wound cultures evaluated in Portugal [66].

3.4. Asia

There were 30 studies conducted in Asian countries that discussed the microbiology of wound infections and the prevalence of P. aeruginosa (Figure 1). Countries that were represented in the literature search included China [69,70,71], India [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82], Indonesia [83,84], Iran [85,86], Kuwait [87], Lebanon [88], Malaysia [89,90,91], Pakistan [92,93,94], Singapore [95], Turkey [96], and Iraq [97]. Most of the included studies focused on diabetic foot infections, and the frequency of P. aeruginosa isolation was therefore comparable when all chronic wound infections were evaluated or if diabetic foot infections specifically were analyzed (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Across the entire continent, S. aureus was the most commonly encountered organism, while P. aeruginosa was typically the second most common pathogen with a rate of isolation of about 21% (Figure 1).
Contrary to the rest of the continent, P. aeruginosa was the most abundant pathogen in India and Malaysia. Of the 11 studies that took place in India, five of the investigations found that P. aeruginosa was the most commonly isolated organism, which was followed by S. aureus and members of the order Enterobacterales (mainly Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae), respectively [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. The reported frequency of P. aeruginosa isolation was also relatively consistent with a range of 16–30% in every Indian study. P. aeruginosa was also the most abundant pathogen in Malaysia, where two of three studies reported that P. aeruginosa was the most frequently encountered organism [89,90,91]. In Indonesia, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus were both reported as the most abundant organism in one study and the second most common organism in the other investigation conducted in the country [83,84].

3.5. Africa

Seven studies that evaluated the microbiology of chronic wound infections in Africa were included in the review (Figure 1). A single investigation was identified from each of the following countries: Ghana [98], Tanzania [99], Burkina Faso [100], Sierra Leone [101], Nigeria [102], Uganda [103], and Egypt [104]. Similar to other regions, S. aureus was the most frequently encountered pathogen in the continent of Africa, and P. aeruginosa was the second most abundant organism; however, P. aeruginosa was the most commonly isolated organism in the studies that corresponded to Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania [99,101,102]. The lowest rate of P. aeruginosa isolation (2.8%) was observed in Burkina Faso [100], whereas the Nigerian investigation reported the highest P. aeruginosa rate of isolation (30.6%) [102]. The median frequency of P. aeruginosa isolation for the entire region was 23%.
The investigations from Egypt, Ghana, and Burkina Faso focused specifically on diabetic foot infections [98,100,104]. Collectively, P. aeruginosa was a relatively rare organism to isolate from diabetic foot infections with an approximate isolation rate of 9.4%. Not only were gram-positive cocci more commonly encountered in African diabetic foot infections, but members of the order Enterobacterales were reportedly the most prominent gram-negative pathogens. The largest study in the African region evaluated 1803 isolates from diabetic foot infections in Cairo, Egypt, and found that P. aeruginosa was the third most encountered organism and the most prevalent gram-negative pathogen [104]. The Egyptian investigation also observed that P. aeruginosa was more commonly cultured from outpatients with diabetic foot infections in comparison to inpatients.

3.6. Australia

Only two Australian studies that discussed the microbiology of chronic wound infections were located in the literature search and both focused on diabetic foot infections (Figure 1 and Figure 2) [105,106]. An analysis by Lynar et al. reviewed a collection of microbiological samples that were taken from 413 adult patients living with diabetes and found that P. aeruginosa was isolated from 12.2% of the patients’ samples [106]. In a study by Commons et al., P. aeruginosa was detected in 20.9% of diabetic foot infections that resulted in hospital admissions during the study period [105]. When the authors included wound samples from the 12 months prior to hospital admission, then P. aeruginosa was isolated from 26.6% of the 177 patients that were included in the analysis. In both of the aforementioned studies, S. aureus was the most commonly isolated pathogen and P. aeruginosa was the second most commonly reported organism; however, only a few pathogens were discussed in each study.

4. Other Risk Factors for Involvement of P. aeruginosa in Chronic Wound Infections

To prevent the unnecessary use of broad spectrum antimicrobials for the treatment of chronic wound infections, it is helpful to empirically assess the likelihood that P. aeruginosa is involved with a given infectious process. As outlined in the preceding section, the geographic region and type of chronic wound infection may both influence the probability of encountering P. aeruginosa. Moreover, two separate studies found that large wounds with average sizes of 35.89 cm2 and 42.8 cm2 were correlated with the presence of P. aeruginosa (p = 0.0014 and p < 0.001, respectively) [46,50]. The isolation of P. aeruginosa was also associated with longer wound durations (p < 0.0001) [46], prior amputations (p < 0.001) [107], and the use of an active wound dressing in the past (p = 0.018) [107]. In contrast, the severity of the wound infection, recent antimicrobial use, and the presence of osteomyelitis were not associated with P. aeruginosa in two separate analyses [39,100].

5. Clinical Predictive Value of Culturing P. aeruginosa

In patients suffering from diabetic foot infections, multiple studies failed to establish a statistical relationship between the presence of P. aeruginosa and the likeliness that the patient will require an amputation or surgical debridement [39,41,42]. The involvement of P. aeruginosa was also not associated with whether patients requiring surgical interventions will receive minor versus major amputations (p > 0.05) [107]. A multivariable analysis of diabetic foot infections by Saltoglu et al. determined that culturing gram-negative rods was associated with an increased risk of limb loss (p = 0.022), and although P. aeruginosa was the most abundant gram-negative rod, there were approximately twice as many Enterobacterale isolates collectively, which confounds the interpretation of the study [64]. According to an investigation by Zhang et al., the relationship between P. aeruginosa and the likeliness of amputations for patients with diabetic foot infections may depend on the specific toxins that are released by each strain of P. aeruginosa [70].
In addition to a lack of an association between P. aeruginosa and amputations, the presence of P. aeruginosa has failed to correlate with other clinically meaningful processes as well. Despite being associated with the production of biofilm in wound infections [55,81], P. aeruginosa was not associated with delayed wound healing in chronic leg ulcerations [58]. In a separate investigation, the lack of Pseudomonas species being detected from leg ulcerations was associated with delayed wound healing in a multivariate analysis (p = 0.005) [108], but the specific impact of P. aeruginosa on wound healing may depend on the virulence factors possessed by each individual strain [70]. Another study found that P. aeruginosa was not associated with rehospitalization (p = 0.541) or mortality (p = 0.374) [62], and while a second investigation determined that P. aeruginosa was associated with mortality in a univariate analysis, the multivariate model removed P. aeruginosa as an independent predictor of mortality (p = 0.16) [106]. P. aeruginosa was also associated with necrotizing wound infections in a separate univariate analysis (p = 0.004), but again, the multivariate analysis did not include P. aeruginosa as a predictor of necrotizing infections [109].

6. Sampling Techniques for the Detection of P. aeruginosa

As discussed earlier, the optimal technique for isolating organisms from chronic wound infections is a subject of debate [1]. Although a tissue biopsy may decrease the likeliness of culturing superficial colonizers, the technique has several drawbacks including cost, time, and patient pain and bleeding. If wound swabs are used, clinicians may elect to either use a Z technique that involves manipulating the swab in a zig-zag formation over the center of the wound, or conversely, the Levine technique requires the medical professional to rotate a sterile swab over a 1 cm2 section of clean wound tissue with enough pressure to expel fluid from the wound [110,111].
To determine the optimal way to specifically detect P. aeruginosa from chronic wound infections, clinicians must first know whether tissue biopsies and wound swabs result in different rates of detection. An analysis by Davies et al. suggested that wound swabs were generally equivalent to punch biopsies for the detection of pathogens from chronic leg ulcerations, but a subanalysis of P. aeruginosa was not available [58]. A study by Gjødsbøl et al. evaluated sample collection techniques of chronic venous leg ulcers and determined that tissue biopsies and wound swabs resulted in similar microbiological profiles, and there was no statistical difference in the isolation of P. aeruginosa (p = 0.90) [51]. When Smith et al. compared curetted tissue samples and wound swabs of uninfected chronic wounds of patients that use intravenous drugs, wound swabs cultured a greater yield of anaerobic and gram-positive bacteria; however, both techniques resulted in the isolation of P. aeruginosa from the same number of patients [32].
Perhaps the largest study that compared wound swabs with tissue samples was a multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study conducted by Nelson et al. that evaluated diabetic foot infections [57]. Over 400 patients were included in the analysis, and the authors found that tissue samples detected more pathogens than Levine’s technique (p < 0.01), but the tissue samples obtained from a curette or scalpel resulted in more ulcer pain and bleeding. Both sampling techniques detected P. aeruginosa in a total of 26 patients, with 18 patients that overlapped between the two groups. The overall rate of agreement between the two techniques was 95.9% (prevalence-adjusted kappa 0.92) for P. aeruginosa.
Given the similar rates of P. aeruginosa isolation when a wound swab or tissue sample is used, it may be helpful to determine if different wound swab techniques impact the likeliness of culturing P. aeruginosa [28]. A study by Gardner et al. compared tissue culture results from chronic wound infections with results obtained from Levine’s technique, the Z technique, and wound exudates. Not only was the Levine technique superior to the Z technique and wound exudates overall, but the Levine technique also had the highest level of agreement with tissue culture results when P. aeruginosa was specifically evaluated. In a randomized controlled trial that compared the Levine technique to the Z technique for the isolation of pathogens from acute and chronic wounds, the Levine technique was superior to the Z technique for collection of organisms from both acute and chronic wounds [110]. Both techniques were able to detect P. aeruginosa, but a quantitative analysis for P. aeruginosa specifically was not available. Based on the results of the aforementioned studies, the Levine technique may be one of the most pragmatic and reliable ways to isolate P. aeruginosa from a chronic wound infection.

7. Limitations and Areas for Further Research

There are several limitations to the current review that are relevant to the interpretation of the information presented within the manuscript. First, our global summary of the relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections is only intended to give an approximation of how commonly P. aeruginosa is encountered in a certain area in comparison to other pathogens. Given the heterogeneity of the studies that were included in the review, it was difficult to make objective comparisons between different regions. Many of the included investigations used different patient populations, evaluated different types of chronic wound infections, used diverging study designs, or reported their results in contrasting manners. Second, our review was restricted to countries that published studies relevant to the current subject, and given the different size and geographical characteristics of every country, there may be important differences in the microbiological distribution of pathogens within a country that were not addressed [46]. Lastly, as we addressed in Section 4 of the manuscript, geography is just one variable that influences the likeliness of P. aeruginosa participation in a chronic wound infection, and clinicians must use a multifactorial decision-making process when determining if P. aeruginosa is a suspected pathogen.
Based on the results of our review, there are several areas of potential exploration that will benefit from additional research. The global distribution of studies we located were asymmetrically clustered in certain regions of the world, and areas without a local study that clarifies the regional distribution of microorganisms in a chronic wound infection will likely benefit by conducting such an investigation. Eventually, it will be helpful if the healthcare community can develop a validated screening system that accounts for the region and patient-specific characteristics to prospectively assess the likeliness that P. aeruginosa and other difficult-to-treat pathogens are involved in a chronic wound infection.

8. Conclusions

In summary, the studies included in the current review suggest that P. aeruginosa is the second most common pathogen isolated from chronic wound infections globally. The relative abundance of P. aeruginosa varied based on the type of wound infection and among countries within a single continent. India, Malaysia, and other nations in Southeast Asia may consider having a lower threshold for suspicion of P. aeruginosa involvement with chronic wound infections given the high abundance of the organism in that region. We were not able to locate definitive evidence that tissue samples are more likely to detect the presence of P. aeruginosa in comparison to the less invasive Levine swab technique, and in general, the presence of P. aeruginosa did not seem to correlate with clinical outcomes such as the likeliness of limb amputation or mortality. Considering that risk factors such as wound size and duration of the wound were associated with P. aeruginosa isolation, clinicians may be able to develop risk stratification systems that incorporates region and other variables into an empiric plan for the management of each wound infection.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

Thank you mapchart.net for generating the world maps that were used in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bowler, P.G.; Duerden, B.I.; Armstrong, D.G. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001, 14, 244–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ghotaslou, R.; Memar, M.Y.; Alizadeh, N. Classification, microbiology and treatment of diabetic foot infections. J. Wound Care 2018, 27, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pitocco, D.; Spanu, T.; Di Leo, M.; Vitiello, R.; Rizzi, A.; Tartaglione, L.; Fiori, B.; Caputo, S.; Tinelli, G.; Zaccardi, F.; et al. Diabetic foot infections: A comprehensive overview. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 23, 26–37. [Google Scholar]
  4. Breidenstein, E.B.; de la Fuente-Núñez, C.; Hancock, R.E. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: All roads lead to resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2011, 19, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pang, Z.; Raudonis, R.; Glick, B.R.; Lin, T.J.; Cheng, Z. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Esposito, S.; Leone, S.; Noviello, S.; Fiore, M.; Ianniello, F.; Felaco, F.M.; Romagnoli, F.; Sarli, E. Foot infections in diabetes (DFIs) in the out-patient setting: An Italian multicentre observational survey. Diabet. Med. J. Br. Diabet. Assoc. 2008, 25, 979–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Prasad, A.S.B.; Shruptha, P.; Prabhu, V.; Srujan, C.; Nayak, U.Y.; Anuradha, C.K.R.; Ramachandra, L.; Keerthana, P.; Joshi, M.B.; Murali, T.S.; et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence proteins pseudolysin and protease IV impede cutaneous wound healing. Lab. Investig. J. Tech. Methods Pathol. 2020, 100, 1532–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Thuenauer, R.; Landi, A.; Trefzer, A.; Altmann, S.; Wehrum, S.; Eierhoff, T.; Diedrich, B.; Dengjel, J.; Nyström, A.; Imberty, A.; et al. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa Lectin LecB Causes Integrin Internalization and Inhibits Epithelial Wound Healing. mBio 2020, 11, e03260-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, S.; Li, R.; Cheng, C.; Xu, J.Y.; Jin, C.; Gao, F.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection alters the macrophage phenotype switching process during wound healing in diabetic mice. Cell Biol. Int. 2018, 42, 877–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goldufsky, J.; Wood, S.J.; Jayaraman, V.; Majdobeh, O.; Chen, L.; Qin, S.; Zhang, C.; DiPietro, L.A.; Shafikhani, S.H. Pseudomonas aeruginosa uses T3SS to inhibit diabetic wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2015, 23, 557–564. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bjarnsholt, T.; Kirketerp-Møller, K.; Jensen, P.; Madsen, K.G.; Phipps, R.; Krogfelt, K.; Høiby, N.; Givskov, M. Why chronic wounds will not heal: A novel hypothesis. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2008, 16, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nguyen, A.T.; Oglesby-Sherrouse, A.G. Interactions between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus during co-cultivations and polymicrobial infections. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 6141–6148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cendra, M.D.M.; Torrents, E. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms and their partners in crime. Biotechnol. Adv. 2021, 49, 107734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Orazi, G.; O’Toole, G.A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Alters Staphylococcus aureus Sensitivity to Vancomycin in a Biofilm Model of Cystic Fibrosis Infection. mBio 2017, 8, e00873-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Orazi, G.; Ruoff, K.L.; O’Toole, G.A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Increases the Sensitivity of Biofilm-Grown Staphylococcus aureus to Membrane-Targeting Antiseptics and Antibiotics. mBio 2019, 10, e01501-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Orazi, G.; Jean-Pierre, F.; O’Toole, G.A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14 Enhances the Efficacy of Norfloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus Newman Biofilms. J. Bacteriol. 2020, 202, e00159-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Radlinski, L.; Rowe, S.E.; Kartchner, L.B.; Maile, R.; Cairns, B.A.; Vitko, N.P.; Gode, C.J.; Lachiewicz, A.M.; Wolfgang, M.C.; Conlon, B.P. Pseudomonas aeruginosa exoproducts determine antibiotic efficacy against Staphylococcus aureus. PLoS Biol. 2017, 15, e2003981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. DeLeon, S.; Clinton, A.; Fowler, H.; Everett, J.; Horswill, A.R.; Rumbaugh, K.P. Synergistic interactions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro wound model. Infect. Immun. 2014, 82, 4718–4728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Trizna, E.Y.; Yarullina, M.N.; Baidamshina, D.R.; Mironova, A.V.; Akhatova, F.S.; Rozhina, E.V.; Fakhrullin, R.F.; Khabibrakhmanova, A.M.; Kurbangalieva, A.R.; Bogachev, M.I.; et al. Bidirectional alterations in antibiotics susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus-Pseudomonas aeruginosa dual-species biofilm. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Briaud, P.; Camus, L.; Bastien, S.; Doléans-Jordheim, A.; Vandenesch, F.; Moreau, K. Coexistence with Pseudomonas aeruginosa alters Staphylococcus aureus transcriptome, antibiotic resistance and internalization into epithelial cells. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lenhard, J.R.; Smith, N.M.; Quach, C.D.; Nguyen, T.Q.; Doan, L.H.; Chau, J. Bacterial brothers in arms: Cooperation of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa during antimicrobial exposure. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 2657–2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Magalhães, A.P.; Jorge, P.; Pereira, M.O. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus communication in biofilm infections: Insights through network and database construction. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 45, 712–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Noor, S.; Zubair, M.; Ahmad, J. Diabetic foot ulcer—A review on pathophysiology, classification and microbial etiology. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2015, 9, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Saeed, K.; Esposito, S.; Akram, A.; Ascione, T.; Bal, A.M.; Bassetti, M.; Carnelutti, A.; Chan, M.; Davis, J.; Dryden, M.; et al. Hot topics in diabetic foot infection. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2020, 55, 105942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Verbanic, S.; Shen, Y.; Lee, J.; Deacon, J.M.; Chen, I.A. Microbial predictors of healing and short-term effect of debridement on the microbiome of chronic wounds. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2020, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. DaCosta, R.S.; Kulbatski, I.; Lindvere-Teene, L.; Starr, D.; Blackmore, K.; Silver, J.I.; Opoku, J.; Wu, Y.C.; Medeiros, P.J.; Xu, W.; et al. Point-of-care autofluorescence imaging for real-time sampling and treatment guidance of bioburden in chronic wounds: First-in-human results. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Frank, D.N.; Wysocki, A.; Specht-Glick, D.D.; Rooney, A.; Feldman, R.A.; St Amand, A.L.; Pace, N.R.; Trent, J.D. Microbial diversity in chronic open wounds. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2009, 17, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gardner, S.E.; Frantz, R.A.; Saltzman, C.L.; Hillis, S.L.; Park, H.; Scherubel, M. Diagnostic validity of three swab techniques for identifying chronic wound infection. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2006, 14, 548–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Melendez, J.H.; Frankel, Y.M.; An, A.T.; Williams, L.; Price, L.B.; Wang, N.Y.; Lazarus, G.S.; Zenilman, J.M. Real-time PCR assays compared to culture-based approaches for identification of aerobic bacteria in chronic wounds. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2010, 16, 1762–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rhoads, D.D.; Cox, S.B.; Rees, E.J.; Sun, Y.; Wolcott, R.D. Clinical identification of bacteria in human chronic wound infections: Culturing vs. 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing. BMC Infect. Dis. 2012, 12, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rhoads, D.D.; Wolcott, R.D.; Sun, Y.; Dowd, S.E. Comparison of culture and molecular identification of bacteria in chronic wounds. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 2535–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Smith, M.E.; Robinowitz, N.; Chaulk, P.; Johnson, K. Comparison of chronic wound culture techniques: Swab versus curetted tissue for microbial recovery. Br. J. Community Nurs. 2014, 19, S22–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wolcott, R.D.; Hanson, J.D.; Rees, E.J.; Koenig, L.D.; Phillips, C.D.; Wolcott, R.A.; Cox, S.B.; White, J.S. Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2016, 24, 163–174. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sánchez-Sánchez, M.; Cruz-Pulido, W.L.; Bladinieres-Cámara, E.; Alcalá-Durán, R.; Rivera-Sánchez, G.; Bocanegra-García, V. Bacterial Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Diabetic Foot Ulcers in the Northeast of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2017, 16, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Henig, O.; Pogue, J.M.; Martin, E.; Hayat, U.; Ja’ara, M.; Kilgore, P.E.; Cha, R.; Dhar, S.; Kaye, K.S. The Impact of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms on Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Foot Infections. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2020, 7, ofaa161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Małecki, R.; Klimas, K.; Kujawa, A. Different Patterns of Bacterial Species and Antibiotic Susceptibility in Diabetic Foot Syndrome with and without Coexistent Ischemia. J. Diabetes Res. 2021, 2021, 9947233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dowd, S.E.; Wolcott, R.D.; Sun, Y.; McKeehan, T.; Smith, E.; Rhoads, D. Polymicrobial nature of chronic diabetic foot ulcer biofilm infections determined using bacterial tag encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Parks, C.; Nguyen, S. Bacteriologic analysis of bone biopsy from diabetic foot infections within a VA patient population. Foot 2019, 38, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Young, H.; Knepper, B.; Hernandez, W.; Shor, A.; Bruntz, M.; Berg, C.; Price, C.S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: An uncommon cause of diabetic foot infection. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2015, 105, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. de Souza, J.M.; Vieira, É.C.; Cortez, T.M.; Mondelli, A.L.; Miot, H.A.; Abbade, L.P. Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of chronic leg ulcers: A cross-sectional study. Adv. Ski. Wound Care 2014, 27, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Dos Santos, V.P.; da Silveira, D.R.; Caffaro, R.A. Risk factors for primary major amputation in diabetic patients. Sao Paulo Med. J. Rev. Paul. Med. 2006, 124, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cardoso, N.A.; Cisneiros, L.L.; Machado, C.J.; Cenedezi, J.M.; Procópio, R.J.; Navarro, T.P. Bacterial genus is a risk factor for major amputation in patients with diabetic foot. Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2017, 44, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Silva, V.; Marcoleta, A.; Silva, V.; Flores, D.; Aparicio, T.; Aburto, I.; Latrach, C.; Febré, N. [Prevalence and susceptibility pattern of bacteria isolated from infected chronic wounds in adult patients]. Rev. Chil. Infectol. Organo Of. Soc. Chil. Infectol. 2018, 35, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kurup, R.; Ansari, A.A. A study to identify bacteriological profile and other risk factors among diabetic and non-diabetic foot ulcer patients in a Guyanese hospital setting. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2019, 13, 1871–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mendo-Lopez, R.; Jasso, L.; Guevara, X.; Astocondor, A.L.; Alejos, S.; Bardossy, A.C.; Prentiss, T.; Zervos, M.J.; Jacobs, J.; García, C. Multidrug-Resistant Microorganisms Colonizing Lower Extremity Wounds in Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Lima, Peru. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 97, 1045–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jockenhöfer, F.; Gollnick, H.; Herberger, K.; Isbary, G.; Renner, R.; Stücker, M.; Valesky, E.; Wollina, U.; Weichenthal, M.; Karrer, S.; et al. Bacteriological pathogen spectrum of chronic leg ulcers: Results of a multicenter trial in dermatologic wound care centers differentiated by regions. J. Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges. J. Ger. Soc. Dermatol. JDDG 2013, 11, 1057–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Al Ghazal, P.; Körber, A.; Klode, J.; Schmid, E.N.; Buer, J.; Dissemond, J. Evaluation of the Essen Rotary as a new technique for bacterial swabs: Results of a prospective controlled clinical investigation in 50 patients with chronic leg ulcers. Int. Wound J. 2014, 11, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Körber, A.; Schmid, E.N.; Buer, J.; Klode, J.; Schadendorf, D.; Dissemond, J. Bacterial colonization of chronic leg ulcers: Current results compared with data 5 years ago in a specialized dermatology department. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2010, 24, 1017–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Renner, R.; Sticherling, M.; Rüger, R.; Simon, J. Persistence of bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa in non-healing venous ulcers. Eur. J. Dermatol. EJD 2012, 22, 751–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gjødsbøl, K.; Christensen, J.J.; Karlsmark, T.; Jørgensen, B.; Klein, B.M.; Krogfelt, K.A. Multiple bacterial species reside in chronic wounds: A longitudinal study. Int. Wound J. 2006, 3, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gjødsbøl, K.; Skindersoe, M.E.; Christensen, J.J.; Karlsmark, T.; Jørgensen, B.; Jensen, A.M.; Klein, B.M.; Sonnested, M.K.; Krogfelt, K.A. No need for biopsies: Comparison of three sample techniques for wound microbiota determination. Int. Wound J. 2012, 9, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thomsen, T.R.; Aasholm, M.S.; Rudkjøbing, V.B.; Saunders, A.M.; Bjarnsholt, T.; Givskov, M.; Kirketerp-Møller, K.; Nielsen, P.H. The bacteriology of chronic venous leg ulcer examined by culture-independent molecular methods. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2010, 18, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Bessa, L.J.; Fazii, P.; Di Giulio, M.; Cellini, L. Bacterial isolates from infected wounds and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern: Some remarks about wound infection. Int. Wound J. 2015, 12, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Di Domenico, E.G.; De Angelis, B.; Cavallo, I.; Sivori, F.; Orlandi, F.; Fernandes Lopes Morais D’Autilio, M.; Di Segni, C.; Gentile, P.; Scioli, M.G.; Orlandi, A.; et al. Silver Sulfadiazine Eradicates Antibiotic-Tolerant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms in Patients with Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Di Domenico, E.G.; Farulla, I.; Prignano, G.; Gallo, M.T.; Vespaziani, M.; Cavallo, I.; Sperduti, I.; Pontone, M.; Bordignon, V.; Cilli, L.; et al. Biofilm is a Major Virulence Determinant in Bacterial Colonization of Chronic Skin Ulcers Independently from the Multidrug Resistant Phenotype. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sloan, T.J.; Turton, J.C.; Tyson, J.; Musgrove, A.; Fleming, V.M.; Lister, M.M.; Loose, M.W.; Sockett, R.E.; Diggle, M.; Game, F.L.; et al. Examining diabetic heel ulcers through an ecological lens: Microbial community dynamics associated with healing and infection. J. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Nelson, A.; Wright-Hughes, A.; Backhouse, M.R.; Lipsky, B.A.; Nixon, J.; Bhogal, M.S.; Reynolds, C.; Brown, S. 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, 8, e019437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Davies, C.E.; Hill, K.E.; Newcombe, R.G.; Stephens, P.; Wilson, M.J.; Harding, K.G.; Thomas, D.W. A prospective study of the microbiology of chronic venous leg ulcers to reevaluate the clinical predictive value of tissue biopsies and swabs. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Health Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2007, 15, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kwiecińska-Piróg, J.; Przekwas, J.; Majkut, M.; Skowron, K.; Gospodarek-Komkowska, E. Biofilm Formation Reducing Properties of Manuka Honey and Propolis in Proteus mirabilis Rods Isolated from Chronic Wounds. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zmudzińska, M.; Czarnecka-Operacz, M.; Silny, W. Bacterial flora of leg ulcers in patients admitted to Department of Dermatology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, during the 1998-2002 period. Acta Dermatovenerol. Croat. ADC 2005, 13, 168–172. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cwajda-Białasik, J.; Mościcka, P.; Jawień, A.; Szewczyk, M.T. Microbiological Status of Venous Leg Ulcers and Its Predictors: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Saltoglu, N.; Ergonul, O.; Tulek, N.; Yemisen, M.; Kadanali, A.; Karagoz, G.; Batirel, A.; Ak, O.; Sonmezer, C.; Eraksoy, H.; et al. Influence of multidrug resistant organisms on the outcome of diabetic foot infection. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 70, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Saltoglu, N.; Surme, S.; Ezirmik, E.; Kadanali, A.; Kurt, A.F.; Sahin Ozdemir, M.; Ak, O.; Altay, F.A.; Acar, A.; Cakar, Z.S.; et al. The Effects of Antimicrobial Resistance and the Compatibility of Initial Antibiotic Treatment on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Diabetic Foot Infection. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2021, 15347346211004141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saltoglu, N.; Yemisen, M.; Ergonul, O.; Kadanali, A.; Karagoz, G.; Batirel, A.; Ak, O.; Eraksoy, H.; Cagatay, A.; Vatan, A.; et al. Predictors for limb loss among patient with diabetic foot infections: An observational retrospective multicentric study in Turkey. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2015, 21, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fayolle, M.; Morsli, M.; Gelis, A.; Chateauraynaud, M.; Yahiaoui-Martinez, A.; Sotto, A.; Lavigne, J.P.; Dunyach-Remy, C. The Persistence of Staphylococcus aureus in Pressure Ulcers: A Colonising Role. Genes 2021, 12, 1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Machado, C.; Teixeira, S.; Fonseca, L.; Abreu, M.; Carvalho, A.; Pereira, M.T.; Amaral, C.; Freitas, C.; Ferreira, L.; Neto, H.R.; et al. Evolutionary trends in bacteria isolated from moderate and severe diabetic foot infections in a Portuguese tertiary center. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2020, 14, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mahnic, A.; Breznik, V.; Bombek Ihan, M.; Rupnik, M. Comparison Between Cultivation and Sequencing Based Approaches for Microbiota Analysis in Swabs and Biopsies of Chronic Wounds. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 607255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Oien, R.F.; Akesson, N. Bacterial cultures, rapid strep test, and antibiotic treatment in infected hard-to-heal ulcers in primary care. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 2012, 30, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Xie, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, K.; Chen, C.; Huang, J.; Chen, Q.; Shi, P. Microbiological and Antimicrobial Pattern of Diabetic Foot Ulcers at a Tertiary Care Center in East China. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2021, 15347346211055972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, J.; Chu, Y.; Wang, P.; Ji, X.; Li, X.; Wang, C.; Peng, Y. Clinical outcomes of multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and the relationship with type III secretion system in patients with diabetic foot. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2014, 13, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wu, W.X.; Liu, D.; Wang, Y.W.; Wang, C.; Yang, C.; Liu, X.Z.; Mai, L.F.; Ren, M.; Yan, L. Empirical Antibiotic Treatment in Diabetic Foot Infection: A Study Focusing on the Culture and Antibiotic Sensitivity in a Population from Southern China. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2017, 16, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Harika, K.; Shenoy, V.P.; Narasimhaswamy, N.; Chawla, K. Detection of Biofilm Production and Its Impact on Antibiotic Resistance Profile of Bacterial Isolates from Chronic Wound Infections. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 2020, 12, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  73. Basu, S.; Ramchuran Panray, T.; Bali Singh, T.; Gulati, A.K.; Shukla, V.K. A prospective, descriptive study to identify the microbiological profile of chronic wounds in outpatients. Ostomy/Wound Manag. 2009, 55, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  74. Selvarajan, S.; Dhandapani, S.; Anuradha, R.; Lavanya, T.; Lakshmanan, A. Bacteriological Profile of Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase Producers in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Cureus 2021, 13, e20596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Singh, A.K.; Yeola, M.; Singh, N.; Damke, S. A study on diabetic foot ulcers in Central rural India to formulate empiric antimicrobial therapy. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2020, 9, 4216–4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Rastogi, A.; Sukumar, S.; Hajela, A.; Mukherjee, S.; Dutta, P.; Bhadada, S.K.; Bhansali, A. The microbiology of diabetic foot infections in patients recently treated with antibiotic therapy: A prospective study from India. J. Diabetes Its Complicat. 2017, 31, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ramakant, P.; Verma, A.K.; Misra, R.; Prasad, K.N.; Chand, G.; Mishra, A.; Agarwal, G.; Agarwal, A.; Mishra, S.K. Changing microbiological profile of pathogenic bacteria in diabetic foot infections: Time for a rethink on which empirical therapy to choose? Diabetologia 2011, 54, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Saseedharan, S.; Sahu, M.; Chaddha, R.; Pathrose, E.; Bal, A.; Bhalekar, P.; Sekar, P.; Krishnan, P. Epidemiology of diabetic foot infections in a reference tertiary hospital in India. Braz. J. Microbiol. Publ. Braz. Soc. Microbiol. 2018, 49, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sekhar, S.; Unnikrishnan, M.K.; Rodrigues, G.S.; Vyas, N.; Mukhopadhyay, C. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of aerobes in diabetic foot ulcers in a South-Indian tertiary care hospital. Foot 2018, 37, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Shankar, E.M.; Mohan, V.; Premalatha, G.; Srinivasan, R.S.; Usha, A.R. Bacterial etiology of diabetic foot infections in South India. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2005, 16, 567–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. De, A.; Raj, H.J.; Haldar, J.; Mukherjee, P.; Maiti, P.K. Biofilm colonization in chronic treatment refractory infections presenting with discharging sinuses: A study in a tertiary care hospital of Eastern India. J. Lab. Physicians 2017, 9, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Banerjee, T.; Das, A.; Singh, A.; Bansal, R.; Basu, S. The Microflora of Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers Based on Culture and Molecular Examination: A Descriptive Study. Wound Manag. Prev. 2019, 65, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Radji, M.; Putri, C.S.; Fauziyah, S. Antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections in a tertiary care hospital in Jakarta, Indonesia. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2014, 8, 221–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Santoso, M.; Yuliana, M.; Mujono, W.; Kusdiantomo. Pattern of diabetic foot at Koja Regional General Hospital, Jakarta, from 1999 to 2004. Acta Med. Indones. 2005, 37, 187–189. [Google Scholar]
  85. Najari, H.R.; Karimian, T.; Parsa, H.; QasemiBarqi, R.; Allami, A. Bacteriology of moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infections in two tertiary hospitals of Iran. Foot 2019, 40, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Parsa, H.; Samani, S. Microbiological Features and Risk Factors in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Wounds Compend. Clin. Res. Pract. 2015, 27, 308–312. [Google Scholar]
  87. Alhubail, A.; Sewify, M.; Messenger, G.; Masoetsa, R.; Hussain, I.; Nair, S.; Tiss, A. Microbiological profile of diabetic foot ulcers in Kuwait. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0244306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jouhar, L.; Jaafar, R.F.; Nasreddine, R.; Itani, O.; Haddad, F.; Rizk, N.; Hoballah, J.J. Microbiological profile and antimicrobial resistance among diabetic foot infections in Lebanon. Int. Wound J. 2020, 17, 1764–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Goh, T.C.; Bajuri, M.Y.; Nadarajah, S.C.; Abdul Rashid, A.H.; Baharuddin, S.; Zamri, K.S. Clinical and bacteriological profile of diabetic foot infections in a tertiary care. J. Foot Ankle Res. 2020, 13, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kow, R.Y.; Low, C.L.; Ayeop, M.; Che-Ahmad, A.; Awang, M.S. Characteristics and Microbiological Profile of Patients with Diabetic Foot Infections in Kuantan, Pahang. Malays. Orthop. J. 2022, 16, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hitam, S.A.S.; Hassan, S.A.; Maning, N. The Significant Association between Polymicrobial Diabetic Foot Infection and Its Severity and Outcomes. Malays. J. Med. Sci. MJMS 2019, 26, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  92. Amjad, S.S.; Zafar, J.; Shams, N. Bacteriology of Diabetic Foot In Tertiary Care Hospital; Frequency, Antibiotic Susceptibility And Risk Factors. J. Ayub Med. Coll. Abbottabad JAMC 2017, 29, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  93. Aziz, M.; Garduno, R.; Mirani, Z.A.; Baqai, R.; Sheikh, A.S.; Nazir, H.; Raza, Y.; Ayaz, M.; Kazmi, S.U. Determination of antimicrobial effect of protamine by transmission electron microscopy and SDS PAGE on Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from diabetic foot infection. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2019, 22, 827–832. [Google Scholar]
  94. Najjad, M.K.; Idrees, Z.; Zamir, M.; Zeeshan, S.; Shah, S.A. Pseudomonas as trespassers in diabetic foot infections: More questions and fewer answers. JPMA J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2014, 64, S112–S115. [Google Scholar]
  95. Aziz, Z.; Lin, W.K.; Nather, A.; Huak, C.Y. Predictive factors for lower extremity amputations in diabetic foot infections. Diabet. Foot Ankle 2011, 2, 7463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hatipoglu, M.; Mutluoglu, M.; Uzun, G.; Karabacak, E.; Turhan, V.; Lipsky, B.A. The microbiologic profile of diabetic foot infections in Turkey: A 20-year systematic review: Diabetic foot infections in Turkey. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 33, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Al-Khudhairy, M.K.; Al-Shammari, M.M.M. Prevalence of metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from diabetic foot infections in Iraq. New Microbes New Infect. 2020, 35, 100661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Anafo, R.B.; Atiase, Y.; Dayie, N.; Kotey, F.C.N.; Tetteh-Quarcoo, P.B.; Duodu, S.; Osei, M.M.; Alzahrani, K.J.; Donkor, E.S. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infection of Diabetic Foot Ulcers at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Accra, Ghana. Pathogens 2021, 10, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Moremi, N.; Mushi, M.F.; Fidelis, M.; Chalya, P.; Mirambo, M.; Mshana, S.E. Predominance of multi-resistant gram-negative bacteria colonizing chronic lower limb ulcers (CLLUs) at Bugando Medical Center. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Guira, O.; Tiéno, H.; Traoré, S.; Diallo, I.; Ouangré, E.; Sagna, Y.; Zabsonré, J.; Yanogo, D.; Traoré, S.S.; Drabo, Y.J. [The bacterial microflora of diabetic foot infection and factors determining its spectrum in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)]. Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exot. 2015, 108, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Schaumburg, F.; Vas Nunes, J.; Mönnink, G.; Falama, A.M.; Bangura, J.; Mathéron, H.; Conteh, A.; Sesay, M.; Sesay, A.; Grobusch, M.P. Chronic wounds in Sierra Leone: Pathogen spectrum and antimicrobial susceptibility. Infection 2022, 50, 907–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Omoyibo, E.E.; Oladele, A.O.; Ibrahim, M.H.; Adekunle, O.T. Antibiotic susceptibility of wound swab isolates in a tertiary hospital in Southwest Nigeria. Ann. Afr. Med. 2018, 17, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wangoye, K.; Mwesigye, J.; Tungotyo, M.; Twinomujuni Samba, S. Chronic wound isolates and their minimum inhibitory concentrations against third generation cephalosporins at a tertiary hospital in Uganda. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Al-Joufi, F.A.; Aljarallah, K.M.; Hagras, S.A.; Al Hosiny, I.M.; Salem-Bekhit, M.M.; Youssof, A.M.E.; Shakeel, F. Microbial spectrum, antibiotic susceptibility profile, and biofilm formation of diabetic foot infections (2014-18): A retrospective multicenter analysis. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Commons, R.J.; Robinson, C.H.; Gawler, D.; Davis, J.S.; Price, R.N. High burden of diabetic foot infections in the top end of Australia: An emerging health crisis (DEFINE study). Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2015, 110, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Lynar, S.A.; Robinson, C.H.; Boutlis, C.S.; Commons, R.J. Risk factors for mortality in patients with diabetic foot infections: A prospective cohort study. Intern. Med. J. 2019, 49, 867–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Ertugrul, B.M.; Lipsky, B.A.; Ture, M.; Sakarya, S. Risk Factors for Infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Diabetic Foot Infections. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2017, 107, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Moffatt, C.J.; Doherty, D.C.; Smithdale, R.; Franks, P.J. Clinical predictors of leg ulcer healing. Br. J. Dermatol. 2010, 162, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Callahan, D.; Keeley, J.; Alipour, H.; DeVirgilio, C.; Kaji, A.; Plurad, D.; Kim, D.Y. Predictors of Severity in Diabetic Foot Infections. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 33, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Angel, D.E.; Lloyd, P.; Carville, K.; Santamaria, N. The clinical efficacy of two semi-quantitative wound-swabbing techniques in identifying the causative organism(s) in infected cutaneous wounds. Int. Wound J. 2011, 8, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Levine, N.S.; Lindberg, R.B.; Mason, A.D., Jr.; Pruitt, B.A., Jr. The quantitative swab culture and smear: A quick, simple method for determining the number of viable aerobic bacteria on open wounds. J. Trauma 1976, 16, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 11 01210 g001 550
Figure 1. Visual depiction of the relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections of any type across the entire world. Each country that is represented by at least one study is shaded as dark green (P. aeruginosa was the most abundant pathogen), light green (P. aeruginosa was the second most abundant pathogen), yellow (P. aeruginosa was the third most abundant pathogen), or white (P. aeruginosa was not one of the top three pathogens isolated from chronic wound infections). In addition, the comparative abundance of organisms within a continent are listed along with the range and median (med) percentage of how frequently P. aeruginosa was isolated as reported in each study.
Figure 1. Visual depiction of the relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in chronic wound infections of any type across the entire world. Each country that is represented by at least one study is shaded as dark green (P. aeruginosa was the most abundant pathogen), light green (P. aeruginosa was the second most abundant pathogen), yellow (P. aeruginosa was the third most abundant pathogen), or white (P. aeruginosa was not one of the top three pathogens isolated from chronic wound infections). In addition, the comparative abundance of organisms within a continent are listed along with the range and median (med) percentage of how frequently P. aeruginosa was isolated as reported in each study.
Microorganisms 11 01210 g001
Microorganisms 11 01210 g002 550
Figure 2. Relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in comparison to other pathogens that were isolated in studies that focused on diabetic foot infections specifically. Each country that is represented by at least one study is shaded as dark blue (P. aeruginosa was the most abundant pathogen), light blue (P. aeruginosa was the second most abundant pathogen), slight tint of blue (P. aeruginosa was the third most abundant pathogen), or white (P. aeruginosa was not one of the top three pathogens isolated from chronic wound infections). In addition, the comparative abundance of organisms within a continent are listed along with the range and median (med) percentage of how frequently P. aeruginosa was isolated as reported in each study.
Figure 2. Relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in comparison to other pathogens that were isolated in studies that focused on diabetic foot infections specifically. Each country that is represented by at least one study is shaded as dark blue (P. aeruginosa was the most abundant pathogen), light blue (P. aeruginosa was the second most abundant pathogen), slight tint of blue (P. aeruginosa was the third most abundant pathogen), or white (P. aeruginosa was not one of the top three pathogens isolated from chronic wound infections). In addition, the comparative abundance of organisms within a continent are listed along with the range and median (med) percentage of how frequently P. aeruginosa was isolated as reported in each study.
Microorganisms 11 01210 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Phan, S.; Feng, C.H.; Huang, R.; Lee, Z.X.; Moua, Y.; Phung, O.J.; Lenhard, J.R. Relative Abundance and Detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Chronic Wound Infections Globally. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051210

AMA Style

Phan S, Feng CH, Huang R, Lee ZX, Moua Y, Phung OJ, Lenhard JR. Relative Abundance and Detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Chronic Wound Infections Globally. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(5):1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051210

Chicago/Turabian Style

Phan, Sang, Cafrey He Feng, Raymond Huang, Zeng X. Lee, Yer Moua, Olivia J. Phung, and Justin R. Lenhard. 2023. "Relative Abundance and Detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Chronic Wound Infections Globally" Microorganisms 11, no. 5: 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051210

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop