Suppr超能文献

组织修复与伤口愈合的最佳诊断实践原则:专家共识

Principles of Best Diagnostic Practice in Tissue Repair and Wound Healing: An Expert Consensus.

作者信息

G Armstrong David, Bauer Karen, Bohn Greg, Carter Marissa, Snyder Robert, Serena Thomas E

机构信息

Keck School of Medicine of USC, Southwestern Academic Limb Salvage Alliance (SALSA), Los Angeles, CA 99033, USA.

Department of Surgery, University of Toledo Physicians, Toledo, OH 43614, USA.

出版信息

Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Dec 31;11(1):50. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11010050.

Abstract

Chronic wound treatment currently relies heavily on visual assessment by clinicians; however, the clinical signs and symptoms of infection and inflammation are unreliable in chronic wounds. The specialty of wound care has witnessed the advent of advanced interventions, such as cellular and/or tissue based products (CTP). The success of advanced therapies relies on preparing the wound bed by reducing bacterial burden and inflammation. The lack of diagnostics in chronic wound care leads to uncertainty in the adequacy of wound bed preparation. Recent research suggests that two novel point-of-care diagnostic tests can assist in the detection of chronic inflammation known as elevated neutrophil derived protease activity (EPA) and bacterial pathogenesis known as bacterial protease activity(BPA) in chronic wounds. Despite the evidence, however, clinicians report that incorporating diagnostics into every day practice is challenging and across the globe, they have requested guidance on their use. Methods and Recommendations: A panel of wound care experts, experienced with these tests, met to develop guidelines on their use in wound care practice. The consensus panel concluded that the clinician should test for BPA first. The panel maintained that the risk of invasive infection resulting from the presence of pathogenic bacteria was the greatest threat to the patient's health. If the BPA test is negative, the panel recommended testing for EPA. In addition, it was suggested that if the wound failed to progress after the elevated BPA was treated and subsequent testing was negative for BPA, the clinician should consider testing for EPA. Conclusions: In this manuscript, the consensus panel suggests pathways for testing, treating, and retesting for EPA and BPA. The panel expects that following the algorithm has the potential to improve healing outcomes, result in more cost-effective use of advanced therapies, and improve antimicrobial stewardship by guiding antimicrobial use.

摘要

慢性伤口治疗目前严重依赖临床医生的视觉评估;然而,慢性伤口中感染和炎症的临床体征和症状并不可靠。伤口护理专业见证了先进干预措施的出现,如基于细胞和/或组织的产品(CTP)。先进疗法的成功依赖于通过减轻细菌负荷和炎症来准备伤口床。慢性伤口护理中缺乏诊断方法导致伤口床准备是否充分存在不确定性。最近的研究表明,两种新型即时诊断测试可以帮助检测慢性伤口中已知的慢性炎症,即中性粒细胞衍生蛋白酶活性升高(EPA)和细菌发病机制,即细菌蛋白酶活性(BPA)。然而,尽管有这些证据,临床医生报告称,将诊断方法纳入日常实践具有挑战性,在全球范围内,他们都要求获得关于这些方法使用的指导。方法和建议:一个熟悉这些测试的伤口护理专家小组开会制定了在伤口护理实践中使用这些测试的指南。共识小组得出结论,临床医生应首先检测BPA。该小组坚持认为,病原菌的存在导致侵袭性感染的风险是对患者健康的最大威胁。如果BPA测试为阴性,该小组建议检测EPA。此外,有人建议,如果在治疗升高的BPA后伤口没有进展,且后续检测BPA为阴性,临床医生应考虑检测EPA。结论:在本手稿中,共识小组提出了EPA和BPA的检测、治疗和重新检测途径。该小组预计,遵循该算法有可能改善愈合结果,更具成本效益地使用先进疗法,并通过指导抗菌药物的使用来改善抗菌药物管理。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aff6/7824433/b33e94901f89/diagnostics-11-00050-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验