Zou X H, Zhu Y P, Ren G Q, Li G C, Zhang J, Zou L J, Feng Z B, Li B H
Department of Wound Repair, Liyuan Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430070, China.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2017 Feb 20;33(2):83-88. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2017.02.005.
To evaluate the significance of bacteria detection with filter paper method on diagnosis of diabetic foot wound infection. Eighteen patients with diabetic foot ulcer conforming to the study criteria were hospitalized in Liyuan Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology from July 2014 to July 2015. Diabetic foot ulcer wounds were classified according to the University of Texas diabetic foot classification (hereinafter referred to as Texas grade) system, and general condition of patients with wounds in different Texas grade was compared. Exudate and tissue of wounds were obtained, and filter paper method and biopsy method were adopted to detect the bacteria of wounds of patients respectively. Filter paper method was regarded as the evaluation method, and biopsy method was regarded as the control method. The relevance, difference, and consistency of the detection results of two methods were tested. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of filter paper method in bacteria detection were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn based on the specificity and sensitivity of filter paper method in bacteria detection of 18 patients to predict the detection effect of the method. Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance and Fisher's exact test. In patients tested positive for bacteria by biopsy method, the correlation between bacteria number detected by biopsy method and that by filter paper method was analyzed with Pearson correlation analysis. (1) There were no statistically significant differences among patients with wounds in Texas grade 1, 2, and 3 in age, duration of diabetes, duration of wound, wound area, ankle brachial index, glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting blood sugar, blood platelet count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase, serum creatinine, and urea nitrogen (with values from 0.029 to 2.916, values above 0.05), while there were statistically significant differences among patients with wounds in Texas grade 1, 2, and 3 in white blood cell count and alanine aminotransferase (with values 4.688 and 6.833 respectively, <0.05 or <0.01). (2) According to the results of biopsy method, 6 patients were tested negative for bacteria, and 12 patients were tested positive for bacteria, among which 10 patients were with bacterial number above 1×10(5)/g, and 2 patients with bacterial number below 1×10(5)/g. According to the results of filter paper method, 8 patients were tested negative for bacteria, and 10 patients were tested positive for bacteria, among which 7 patients were with bacterial number above 1×10(5)/g, and 3 patients with bacterial number below 1×10(5)/g. There were 7 patients tested positive for bacteria both by biopsy method and filter paper method, 8 patients tested negative for bacteria both by biopsy method and filter paper method, and 3 patients tested positive for bacteria by biopsy method but negative by filter paper method. Patients tested negative for bacteria by biopsy method did not tested positive for bacteria by filter paper method. There was directional association between the detection results of two methods (=0.004), i. e. if result of biopsy method was positive, result of filter paper method could also be positive. There was no obvious difference in the detection results of two methods (=0.250). The consistency between the detection results of two methods was ordinary (Kappa=0.68, =0.002). (3) The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of filter paper method in bacteria detection were 70%, 100%, 1.00, 0.73, and 83.3%, respectively. Total area under ROC curve of bacteria detection by filter paper method in 18 patients was 0.919 (with 95% confidence interval 0-1.000, =0.030). (4) There were 13 strains of bacteria detected by biopsy method, with 5 strains of 5 strains of 1 strain of 1 strain of and 1 strain of bird . There were 11 strains of bacteria detected by filter paper method, with 5 strains of 3 strains of 1 strain of 1 strain of and 1 strain of bird . Except for the sensitivity and specificity of filter paper method in the detection of the other 4 bacteria were all 100%. The consistency between filter paper method and biopsy method in detecting was good (Kappa=1.00, <0.01), while that in detecting was ordinary (Kappa=0.68, <0.05). (5) There was no obvious correlation between the bacteria number of wounds detected by filter paper method and that by biopsy method (=0.257, =0.419). There was obvious correlation between the bacteria numbers detected by two methods in wounds with Texas grade 1 and 2 (with values as 0.999, values as 0.001). There was no obvious correlation between the bacteria numbers detected by two methods in wounds with Texas grade 3 (=-0.053, =0.947). The detection result of filter paper method is in accordance with that of biopsy method in the determination of bacterial infection, and it is of great importance in the diagnosis of local infection of diabetic foot wound.
评估滤纸法细菌检测对糖尿病足伤口感染诊断的意义。2014年7月至2015年7月,将符合研究标准的18例糖尿病足溃疡患者收治于华中科技大学同济医学院附属梨园医院。根据美国德克萨斯大学糖尿病足分级(以下简称德克萨斯分级)系统对糖尿病足溃疡伤口进行分类,并比较不同德克萨斯分级患者伤口的一般情况。获取伤口渗出液及组织,分别采用滤纸法和活检法检测患者伤口细菌。以滤纸法为评估方法,活检法为对照方法。检验两种方法检测结果的相关性、差异性及一致性。计算滤纸法细菌检测的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确度。根据18例患者滤纸法细菌检测的特异度和灵敏度绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,预测该方法的检测效果。数据采用单因素方差分析和Fisher确切概率法处理。对活检法检测细菌阳性的患者,采用Pearson相关分析分析活检法与滤纸法检测细菌数量的相关性。(1)德克萨斯分级1级、2级和3级患者在年龄、糖尿病病程、伤口持续时间、伤口面积、踝肱指数、糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖、血小板计数、红细胞沉降率、C反应蛋白、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶、血清肌酐和尿素氮方面差异无统计学意义(P值为0.029~2.916,P>0.05),而德克萨斯分级1级、2级和3级患者在白细胞计数和丙氨酸氨基转移酶方面差异有统计学意义(P值分别为4.688和6.833,P<0.05或P<0.01)。(2)根据活检法结果,6例患者细菌检测阴性,12例患者细菌检测阳性,其中细菌数量>1×105/g的患者10例,细菌数量<1×105/g的患者2例。根据滤纸法结果,8例患者细菌检测阴性,10例患者细菌检测阳性,其中细菌数量>1×105/g的患者7例,细菌数量<1×105/g的患者3例。活检法和滤纸法均检测细菌阳性的患者7例,活检法和滤纸法均检测细菌阴性的患者8例,活检法检测细菌阳性而滤纸法检测细菌阴性的患者3例。活检法检测细菌阴性的患者滤纸法检测未出现阳性。两种方法检测结果存在方向性关联(P=0.004),即活检法结果为阳性时,滤纸法结果也可能为阳性。两种方法检测结果差异无明显统计学意义(P=0.250)。两种方法检测结果的一致性一般(Kappa=0.68,P=0.002)。(3)滤纸法细菌检测的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确度分别为70%、100%、1.00、0.73和83.3%。18例患者滤纸法细菌检测ROC曲线下总面积为0.919(95%可信区间0~1.000,P=0.030)。(4)活检法检测出13株细菌,其中金黄色葡萄球菌5株、大肠埃希菌5株、铜绿假单胞菌1株、阴沟肠杆菌1株、鸟肠球菌1株。滤纸法检测出11株细菌;其中金黄色葡萄球菌5株、大肠埃希菌3株、铜绿假单胞菌1株、阴沟肠杆菌1株、鸟肠球菌1株。除金黄色葡萄球菌外,滤纸法检测其他4种细菌的灵敏度和特异度均为100%。滤纸法与活检法检测金黄色葡萄球菌的一致性良好(Kappa=1.00,P<0.01),而检测大肠埃希菌的一致性一般(Kappa=0.68,P<0.05)。(5)滤纸法与活检法检测伤口细菌数量无明显相关性(r=0.257,P=0.419)。德克萨斯分级1级和2级伤口两种方法检测细菌数量存在明显相关性(r值为0.999,P值为0.001)。德克萨斯分级3级伤口两种方法检测细菌数量无明显相关性(r=-0.053,P=0.947)。滤纸法检测结果与活检法在细菌感染判定方面一致,对糖尿病足伤口局部感染诊断具有重要意义。