Bacterial Autofluorescence Digital Imaging Guides Treatment in Stage 4 Pelvic Pressure Injuries: A Preliminary Case Series
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Population
2.2. Bacterial Autofluorescence Digital Imaging Procedure
2.3. Study Group Demographics
3. Results
3.1. Summary of Results
3.2. Case Reports
3.2.1. Case 1
3.2.2. Case 2
3.2.3. Case 3
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- White-Chu, E.F.; Flock, P.; Struck, B.; Aronson, L. Pressure ulcers in long-term care. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2011, 27, 241–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Franks, P.J.; Winterberg, H.; Moffatt, C.J. Health-related quality of life and pressure ulceration assessment in patients treated in the community. Wound Repair Regen. 2002, 10, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Langemo, D.K.; Melland, H.; Hanson, D.; Olson, B.; Hunter, S. The lived experience of having a pressure ulcer: A qualitative analysis. Adv. Skin Wound Care 2000, 13, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Jaul, E.; Barron, J.; Rosenzweig, J.P.; Menczel, J. An overview of co-morbidities and the development of pressure ulcers among older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jump, R.L.P.; Levy, S.M.; Saltsman, W.S. Post-acute and Long-term Care Settings as First Responders for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2019, 20, 275–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girard, T.D.; Opal, S.M.; Ely, E.W. Insights into severe sepsis in older patients: From epidemiology to evidence-based management. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 40, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esper, A.M.; Moss, M.; Lewis, C.A.; Nisbet, R.; Mannino, D.M.; Martin, G.S. The role of infection and comorbidity: Factors that influence disparities in sepsis. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 2576–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girard, T.D.; Ely, E.W. Bacteremia and sepsis in older adults. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2007, 23, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, R.; Woo, K. A Prospective Multisite Observational Study Incorporating Bacterial Fluorescence Information Into the UPPER/LOWER Wound Infection Checklists. Wounds 2020, 32, 299–308. [Google Scholar]
- Hurley, C.M.; McClusky, P.; Sugrue, R.M.; Clover, J.A.; Kelly, J.E. Efficacy of a bacterial fluorescence imaging device in an outpatient wound care clinic: A pilot study. J. Wound Care 2019, 28, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raizman, R.; Little, W.; Smith, A.C. Rapid Diagnosis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Wounds with Point-Of-Care Fluorescence Imaing. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rennie, M.Y.; Lindvere-Teene, L.; Tapang, K.; Linden, R. Point-of-care fluorescence imaging predicts the presence of pathogenic bacteria in wounds: A clinical study. J. Wound Care 2017, 26, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serena, T.E.; Harrell, K.; Serena, L.; Yaakov, R.A. Real-time bacterial fluorescence imaging accurately identifies wounds with moderate-to-heavy bacterial burden. J. Wound Care 2019, 28, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Le, L.; Baer, M.; Briggs, P.; Bullock, N.; Cole, W.; DiMarco, D.; Hamil, R.; Harrell, K.; Kasper, M.; Li, W.; et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Fluorescence Imaging for the Detection of Bacterial Burden in Wounds: Results from the 350-Patient Fluorescence Imaging Assessment and Guidance Trial. Adv. Wound Care 2021, 10, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, N. Routine fluorescence imaging to detect wound bacteria reduces antibiotic use and antimicrobial dressing expenditure while improving healing rates: Retrospective analysis of 229 foot ulcers. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raizman, R. Fluorescence imaging guided dressing change frequency during negative pressure wound therapy: A case series. J. Wound Care 2019, 28 (Suppl. 9), S28–S37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raizman, R.; Dunham, D.; Lindvere-Teene, L.; Jones, L.M.; Tapang, K.; Linden, R.; Rennie, M.Y. Use of a bacterial fluorescence imaging device: Wound measurement, bacterial detection and targeted debridement. J. Wound Care 2019, 28, 824–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rennie, M.Y.; Dunham, D.; Lindvere-Teene, L.; Raizman, R.; Hill, R.; Linden, R. Understanding Real-Time Fluorescence Signals from Bacteria and Wound Tissues Observed with the MolecuLight i:X(TM). Diagnostics 2019, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meyer, J.M.; Neely, A.; Stintzi, A.; Georges, C.; Holder, I.A. Pyoverdin is essential for virulence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect. Immun. 1996, 64, 518–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 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] [Green Version]
- Bay, L.; Kragh, K.N.; Eickhardt, S.R.; Poulsen, S.S.; Gjerdrum, L.M.R.; Ghathian, K.; Calum, H.; Ågren, M.S.; Bjarnsholt, T. Bacterial Aggregates Establish at the Edges of Acute Epidermal Wounds. Adv. Wound Care 2018, 7, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldwell, M.D. Bacteria and Antibiotics in Wound Healing. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 100, 757–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Case | Age | Charlson Index 1 | Sepsis Diagnosis | Autofluorescence Imaging Findings | Impact of Imaging |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 71 | 7 | Yes, informed by images | Gross wound contamination (red fluorescence) was found suggesting low-grade wound sepsis, despite the wound physically looking benign | (1) Demonstrated objectively the insufficiency of the prescribed cleansing regime, (2) led to a switch to cleanser with irrigation and enabled immediate evaluation of its efficacy, (3) prompted collection of a wound culture |
2 | 95 | 6 | Yes, informed by images | Widespread red fluorescence indicative of heavy bacterial contamination of the wound bed | Severity of imaging findings prompted immediate wound debridement, which uncovered a large, deep abscess and led to antibiotic prescription |
3 | 71 | 8 | Yes, informed by images | Red fluorescent pus readily observed on images of sero-sanguinous wound fluid | Large wound fluid amount prompted further clinical investigation revealing probable periprosthetic total join infection |
4 | 76 | 9 | no | Initial images and follow-up scans were negative for bacterial loads of concern. | Indicated that advanced treatments were unnecessary; wound healed without incident |
5 | 88 | 4 | no | Across multiple wounds, initial images and follow-up scans were negative for bacterial loads of concern. | Indicated that advanced treatments were unnecessary; wound continues to progress well |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stiehl, J.B. Bacterial Autofluorescence Digital Imaging Guides Treatment in Stage 4 Pelvic Pressure Injuries: A Preliminary Case Series. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050839
Stiehl JB. Bacterial Autofluorescence Digital Imaging Guides Treatment in Stage 4 Pelvic Pressure Injuries: A Preliminary Case Series. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(5):839. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050839
Chicago/Turabian StyleStiehl, James B. 2021. "Bacterial Autofluorescence Digital Imaging Guides Treatment in Stage 4 Pelvic Pressure Injuries: A Preliminary Case Series" Diagnostics 11, no. 5: 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050839
APA StyleStiehl, J. B. (2021). Bacterial Autofluorescence Digital Imaging Guides Treatment in Stage 4 Pelvic Pressure Injuries: A Preliminary Case Series. Diagnostics, 11(5), 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050839