• Anouk Pijpe, Yildiz Ozdemir, Jan C Sinnige, KwaKelly A AKAABurn Center, Red Cross Hospital, PO Box 1074, 1940 EB, Beverwijk, the Netherlands.Department of Trauma Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands., Esther Middelkoop, and Annebeth Meij-de Vries.
• Burn Center, Red Cross Hospital, PO Box 1074, 1940 EB, Beverwijk, the Netherlands.
• J Wound Care. 2019 Aug 2; 28 (8): 548-554.

ObjectiveTo compare the detection of bacteria in burn wounds between an bacterial fluorescence imaging device MolecuLight i:X, (Canada), and standard microbiological swabs.MethodsWounds were swabbed three times on one occasion; once with a standard swab, once with a high-fluorescent area swab, indicating a bacterial load >104 colony-forming units (CFU)/gram and a finally with a non-fluorescent (nF) area swab. Proportion agreement of the microbiological results was calculated and the accuracy of the device to detect relevant bacteria was assessed.ResultsA total of 14 patients with 20 wounds participated in the study. Median post-burn day at sampling time was 21 days. Of the 20 wounds, nine had a positive swab result in either of the three swabs, and 11 showed a highfluorescent area. Overall, positive and negative proportion agreement between standard swab and high-fluorescent swab sample results were 100%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of presence of high-fluorescence were 78%, 64%, 64%, and 78%, respectively. For Pseudomonas aeruginosa detection, these results were 100%, 70%, 44% and 100%, respectively.ConclusionThe diagnostic accuracy of the bacterial fluorescence imaging device to detect relevant bacteria in burn wounds was moderate and the reliability was equal to standard swabbing. Further research in larger sample sizes and on the relevance of minimal bacterial load and its potential to help with Pseudomonas aeruginosa management is needed.

24 keywords...

hide…