Point-of-care autofluorescence imaging for real-time sampling and treatment guidance of bioburden in chronic wounds: first-in-human results

Ralph S DaCosta, Iris Kulbatski, Liis Lindvere-Teene, Danielle Starr, Kristina Blackmore, Jason I Silver, Julie Opoku, Yichao Charlie Wu, Philip J Medeiros, Wei Xu, Lizhen Xu, Brian C Wilson, Cheryl Rosen, Ron Linden, Ralph S DaCosta, Iris Kulbatski, Liis Lindvere-Teene, Danielle Starr, Kristina Blackmore, Jason I Silver, Julie Opoku, Yichao Charlie Wu, Philip J Medeiros, Wei Xu, Lizhen Xu, Brian C Wilson, Cheryl Rosen, Ron Linden

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, chronic wound infection is diagnosed by visual inspection under white light and microbiological sampling, which are subjective and suboptimal, respectively, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment. To address this, we developed a novel handheld, fluorescence imaging device (PRODIGI) that enables non-contact, real-time, high-resolution visualization and differentiation of key pathogenic bacteria through their endogenous autofluorescence, as well as connective tissues in wounds.

Methods and findings: This was a two-part Phase I, single center, non-randomized trial of chronic wound patients (male and female, ≥18 years; UHN REB #09-0015-A for part 1; UHN REB #12-5003 for part 2; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01378728 for part 1 and NCT01651845 for part 2). Part 1 (28 patients; 54% diabetic foot ulcers, 46% non-diabetic wounds) established the feasibility of autofluorescence imaging to accurately guide wound sampling, validated against blinded, gold standard swab-based microbiology. Part 2 (12 patients; 83.3% diabetic foot ulcers, 16.7% non-diabetic wounds) established the feasibility of autofluorescence imaging to guide wound treatment and quantitatively assess treatment response. We showed that PRODIGI can be used to guide and improve microbiological sampling and debridement of wounds in situ, enabling diagnosis, treatment guidance and response assessment in patients with chronic wounds. PRODIGI is safe, easy to use and integrates into the clinical workflow. Clinically significant bacterial burden can be detected in seconds, quantitatively tracked over days-to-months and their biodistribution mapped within the wound bed, periphery, and other remote areas.

Conclusions: PRODIGI represents a technological advancement in wound sampling and treatment guidance for clinical wound care at the point-of-care.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01651845; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01378728.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: RSD, BCW and their institution have a pending patent related to this work (“Device and method for fluorescence-based imaging and monitoring” USPTO WO 2009140757 A1), which is being commercialized. RSD an independent investigator with a Scientist appointment at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, where he has been the principal investigator on this project. He is also is founder and a shareholder of a spin-off company commercializing the technology. He has Board membership and receives separate compensation as Chief Scientific Officer of the company. LT is a part time employee of the University Health Network (clinical associate); she also receives separate compensation as the clinical trials manager for the company. RSD and LT’s roles in this project were not on behalf of the company but rather in the context of their academic appointments/affiliations. No other authors are associated with or receive compensation or own shares of the company. The authors confirm that the above stated competing interests do not alter the authors’ adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors confirm that there are no restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials presented in this work.

Figures

Fig 1. CONSORT Flow diagram for Part…
Fig 1. CONSORT Flow diagram for Part 1 of clinical study.
Flow diagram of the progress through the phases of enrollment, allocation, follow-up, and data analysis for Part 1 of the clinical study.
Fig 2. CONSORT Flow diagram for Part…
Fig 2. CONSORT Flow diagram for Part 2 of clinical study.
Flow diagram of the progress through the phases of enrollment, allocation, follow-up, and data analysis for Part 2 of the clinical study.
Fig 3. Photographs of the handheld prototype…
Fig 3. Photographs of the handheld prototype PRODIGI imaging device and its use for real-time autofluorescence imaging of bacterial load invisible by white light examination.
A. Front view of PRODIGI showing wound fluorescence image displayed in real-time on the LCD screen in high definition. B. Back view of PRODIGI showing white light and 405 nm LED arrays providing illumination of the wound, while the fluorescence mission filter is placed in front of the CCD sensor. Inset shows side profile of the device. C-E. Photograph of PRODIGI device used to examine a diabetic foot ulcer with room lights on, in a hard shell carrying case in a typical wound clinic setting, and placed on typical wound care cart, respectively. Room lights are turned off for fluorescence imaging. F. PRODIGI white light image of type II diabetic foot ulcer in a 52 y old male patient. G. Corresponding AF image taken in < 1 sec showing bright red fluorescence of pathogenic bacteria in the wound periphery (yellow arrow) and in ‘off site’ areas (white arrow) away from the primary wound (confirmed by swab microbiology as mainly heavy growth S. aureus). Bacterial fluorescence appears red against a background of green fluorescence from connective tissues of the healthy skin, which provides anatomical context for localizing the bacteria within and around the wound. The bacterial regions were not seen under white-light visualization. H. A magnified view of G. showing S. aureus growing within the fissures of the wound periphery. Bright fluorescent ‘hot spots’ (yellow arrow) illustrate heterogeneity in the distribution of bioburden in the wound periphery. Fluorescence imaging allowed targeted swabbing of bacterial areas not possible by white light visualization. The heavy growth S. aureus growing in the off-site area was invisible by traditional clinical examination. Scale bars: A. 2 cm, B. 2 cm, C. 1 cm.
Fig 4. Autofluorescence detection of clinically-significant bacterial…
Fig 4. Autofluorescence detection of clinically-significant bacterial load in wound periphery and off-site areas.
A. White light image of a type II diabetic foot ulcer in a 78 y old female. B. Corresponding AF image showing heavy growth of S. aureus in the wound periphery missed by white light imaging. C. White light shows unremarkable areas between toes, while in D. the corresponding AF imaging detected bacterial biofilm, confirmed by microbiology. E. Schematic illustrates different wound locations where fluorescence imaging detected clinically significant bacterial load. F. Comparison of accuracy for correctly detecting clinically-significant bioburden between standard WL and AF imaging in wound bed, wound periphery and off-site areas. Scale bars: A,B. 1 cm; C. 2 cm, D. 1 cm.
Fig 5. Wound swabs taken under autofluorescence…
Fig 5. Wound swabs taken under autofluorescence imaging guidance, indicating detected polymicrobial species prevalence.
The percentage of bacteria for each species are plotted for A. all swabs, B. swabs obtained from the wound bed, C. from the wound periphery and D. ‘off-site’ areas away from the primary wound.
Fig 6. Quantitative longitudinal tracking of bacterial…
Fig 6. Quantitative longitudinal tracking of bacterial load in chronic wounds.
A. Sequential white light (top row) and AF images (middle row) of a non-healing diabetic foot ulcer in a 67 y old female performed over 5.5 months. AF images revealed bluish-green fluorescence within the wound bed and bright red bacteria around the wound periphery. A fluorescence intensity-based segmentation algorithm was used to quantify bacterial load changes over time (bottom row), with the bacteria false-colored and overlaid on original AF images of the middle row. B. Quantitative changes in bacterial load over time measured by relative bacterial fluorescence amount (total red AF area in cm2) indicate clinically-significant microbial load in the wound periphery, both of which are missed during conventional clinical examination. Scale bar: A. ~1 cm.
Fig 7. Fluorescence image-guided treatment accelerates wound…
Fig 7. Fluorescence image-guided treatment accelerates wound closure over time compared with non-guided conventional treatment.
A. Plot showing wound area measurements for twelve individual patients as a function of time from the onset of the study over the first control period (blue circles, the fluorescence image-guided period (red solid circles) and the second control period (green triangles). During the control periods, treatment was administered without real-time fluorescence image guidance. B. Plot showing the rate of change in the average wound area over the course of the study estimated from the regression model. The slopes and their corresponding p-values are shown for each study period. The data indicate that fluorescence image-guided treatment increased the rate of wound closure in a statistically significant manner compared with the control (non-guided) periods indicating that fluorescence image guided wound treatment could be beneficial addition to conventional wound therapy protocols. * p-value tests for change in the growth rate of average wound area in the guided period from the previous period. ** p-value tests for change in the growth rate of average wound area in the 2nd control period from the guided period.

References

    1. Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG (2001) Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin Microbiol Rev 14: 244–269.
    1. Cutting KF, White RJ (2005) Criteria for identifying wound infection—revisited. Ostomy Wound Manage 51: 28–34.
    1. Harding KG, Morris HL, Patel GK (2002) Science, medicine and the future: healing chronic wounds. BMJ 324: 160–163.
    1. Broughton G, Janis JE, Attinger CE (2006) Wound healing: an overview. Plast Reconstr Surg 117: 1e-S–32e-S.
    1. Dow G, Browne A, Sibbald RG (1999) Infection in chronic wounds: controversies in diagnosis and treatment. Ostomy Wound Manage 45: 23–27, 29–40; quiz 41–22
    1. Bowler PG (2002) Wound pathophysiology, infection and therapeutic options. Ann Med 34: 419–427.
    1. Browne AC, Vearncombe M, Sibbald RG (2001) High bacterial load in asymptomatic diabetic patients with neurotrophic ulcers retards wound healing after application of Dermagraft. Ostomy Wound Manage 47: 44–49.
    1. Sussman C, Bates-Jensen B (2012) Wound Care: A Collaborative Practice Manual for Health Professionals. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
    1. Cutting KF, White R (2004) Defined and refined: criteria for identifying wound infection revisited. Br J Community Nurs 9: S6–15.
    1. Moore Z, Cowman S (2007) Effective wound management: identifying criteria for infection. Nurs Stand 21: 68, 70, 72 passim
    1. Edwards R, Harding KG (2004) Bacteria and wound healing. Curr Opin Infect Dis 17: 91–96.
    1. Harding K (2000) Challenges for skin and wound care in the new century. Adv Skin Wound Care 13: 212, 215.
    1. Jeffcoate WJ, Price P, Harding KG, International Working Group on Wound H, Treatments for People with Diabetic Foot U (2004) Wound healing and treatments for people with diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 20 Suppl 1: S78–89.
    1. Queen D, Harding K (2012) National approaches to wound treatment and prevention. Int Wound J 9: 349 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01053.x
    1. Thomas DW, Harding KG (2002) Wound healing. Br J Surg 89: 1203–1205.
    1. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, Pile JC, Peters EJ, et al. (2012) 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 54: e132–173. 10.1093/cid/cis346
    1. (2009) Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: clinical practice guideline European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Washington DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel.
    1. Martin JM, Zenilman JM, Lazarus GS (2010) Molecular microbiology: new dimensions for cutaneous biology and wound healing. J Invest Dermatol 130: 38–48. 10.1038/jid.2009.221
    1. Xu L, McLennan SV, Lo L, Natfaji A, Bolton T, et al. (2007) Bacterial load predicts healing rate in neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 30: 378–380.
    1. Liu Y, Min D, Bolton T, Nube V, Twigg SM, et al. (2009) Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 predicts poor wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers: Response to Muller et al. Diabetes Care 32: e137 10.2337/dc09-1394
    1. Spear M (2014) When and how to culture a chronic wound: A culture is a valuable tool in wound care if used correctly. Wound Care Advisor 3: 23–25.
    1. Angel DE, Lloyd P, Carville K, Santamaria N (2011) The clinical efficacy of two semi-quantitative wound-swabbing techniques in identifying the causative organism(s) in infected cutaneous wounds. Int Wound J 8: 176–185. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00765.x
    1. Starr S, MacLeod T (2003) Wound swabbing technique. Nurs Times 99: 57–59.
    1. Pellizzer G, Strazzabosco M, Presi S, Furlan F, Lora L, et al. (2001) Deep tissue biopsy vs. superficial swab culture monitoring in the microbiological assessment of limb-threatening diabetic foot infection. Diabet Med 18: 822–827.
    1. Mutluoglu M, Uzun G, Turhan V, Gorenek L, Ay H, et al. (2012) How reliable are cultures of specimens from superficial swabs compared with those of deep tissue in patients with diabetic foot ulcers? J Diabetes Complications 26: 225–229. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2012.03.015
    1. Bill TJ, Ratliff CR, Donovan AM, Knox LK, Morgan RF, et al. (2001) Quantitative swab culture versus tissue biopsy: a comparison in chronic wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage 47: 34–37.
    1. Aukhil I (2000) Biology of wound healing. Periodontol 2000 22: 44–50.
    1. Schaffer CJ, Nanney LB (1996) Cell biology of wound healing. Int Rev Cytol 169: 151–181.
    1. Stremitzer S, Wild T, Hoelzenbein T (2007) How precise is the evaluation of chronic wounds by health care professionals? Int Wound J 4: 156–161.
    1. Papasian CJ, Kragel PJ (1997) The microbiology laboratory’s role in life-threatening infections. Crit Care Nurs Q 20: 44–59.
    1. DaCosta RS, Andersson H, Wilson BC (2003) Molecular fluorescence excitation-emission matrices relevant to tissue spectroscopy. Photochem Photobiol 78: 384–392.
    1. Wu YC, Kulbatski I, Medeiros PJ, Chamma E, Maeda A, et al. (2014) Autofluorescence imaging device for real-time detection and tracking of pathogenic bacteria in a mouse skin wound model: preclinical feasibility studies. J Biomed Opt 19: 085002 10.1117/1.JBO.19.8.085002
    1. Gardner SE, Frantz RA, Troia C, Eastman S, MacDonald M, et al. (2001) A tool to assess clinical signs and symptoms of localized infection in chronic wounds: development and reliability. Ostomy Wound Manage 47: 40–47.
    1. Bates-Jensen BM (1997) The Pressure Sore Status Tool a few thousand assessments later. Adv Wound Care 10: 65–73.
    1. Thomas DR, Rodeheaver GT, Bartolucci AA, Franz RA, Sussman C, et al. (1997) Pressure ulcer scale for healing: derivation and validation of the PUSH tool. The PUSH Task Force. Adv Wound Care 10: 96–101.
    1. Haghpanah S, Bogie K, Wang X, Banks PG, Ho CH (2006) Reliability of electronic versus manual wound measurement techniques. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87: 1396–1402.
    1. Flanagan M (2003) Improving accuracy of wound measurement in clinical practice. Ostomy Wound Manage 49: 28–40.
    1. Murray PR (1985) Manual approaches to rapid microbiology results. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 3: 9S–14S.
    1. Sibbald RG, Woo K, Ayello EA (2006) Increased bacterial burden and infection: the story of NERDS and STONES. Adv Skin Wound Care 19: 447–461; quiz 461–443
    1. Lieber MLA, C. A (1998) A SAS Macro Implementing an Extension of McNemar’s Test for Clustered Data. SUGI 23: Paper 204.
    1. Diggle PJ, Heagerty P, Liang K-Y, Zeger SL (2002) Analysis of Longitudinal Data: Oxford University Press.
    1. Kjeldstad B, Christensen T, Johnsson A (1985) Porphyrin photosensitization of bacteria. Adv Exp Med Biol 193: 155–159.
    1. Philipp-Dormston WK, Doss M (1973) Comparison of porphyrin and heme biosynthesis in various heterotrophic bacteria. Enzyme 16: 57–64.
    1. Stone FM, Coulter CB (1932) Porphyrin Compounds Derived from Bacteria. J Gen Physiol 15: 629–639.
    1. Cody YS, Gross DC (1987) Characterization of Pyoverdin(pss), the Fluorescent Siderophore Produced by Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae. Appl Environ Microbiol 53: 928–934.
    1. Cox CD, Adams P (1985) Siderophore activity of pyoverdin for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Immun 48: 130–138.
    1. Davies CE, Hill KE, Newcombe RG, Stephens P, Wilson MJ, et al. (2007) 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 15: 17–22.
    1. Meyer JM (2000) Pyoverdines: pigments, siderophores and potential taxonomic markers of fluorescent Pseudomonas species. Arch Microbiol 174: 135–142.
    1. Warriner R, Burrell R (2005) Infection and the chronic wound: a focus on silver. Adv Skin Wound Care 18 Suppl 1: 2–12.
    1. McCarty SM, Cochrane CA, Clegg PD, Percival SL (2012) The role of endogenous and exogenous enzymes in chronic wounds: a focus on the implications of aberrant levels of both host and bacterial proteases in wound healing. Wound Repair Regen 20: 125–136. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00763.x
    1. Sapico FL, Ginunas VJ, Thornhill-Joynes M, Canawati HN, Capen DA, et al. (1986) Quantitative microbiology of pressure sores in different stages of healing. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 5: 31–38.
    1. Gardner SE, Frantz RA, Doebbeling BN (2001) The validity of the clinical signs and symptoms used to identify localized chronic wound infection. Wound Repair Regen 9: 178–186.
    1. Armstrong DG, Athanasiou KA (1998) The edge effect: how and why wounds grow in size and depth. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 15: 105–108.
    1. Steed DL, Donohoe D, Webster MW, Lindsley L (1996) Effect of extensive debridement and treatment on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetic Ulcer Study Group. J Am Coll Surg 183: 61–64.
    1. Bergen GA, Toney JF (1998) Infection versus colonization in the critical care unit. Crit Care Clin 14: 71–90.
    1. Casadevall A, Pirofski LA (2000) Host-pathogen interactions: basic concepts of microbial commensalism, colonization, infection, and disease. Infect Immun 68: 6511–6518.
    1. White RJ, Cutting KF (2006) Critical colonization—the concept under scrutiny. Ostomy Wound Manage 52: 50–56.
    1. Cunha BA (2007) Fever of unknown origin: focused diagnostic approach based on clinical clues from the history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Infect Dis Clin North Am 21: 1137–1187, xi
    1. Browne RH (1995) On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med 14: 1933–1940.
    1. Dietel W, Pottier R, Pfister W, Schleier P, Zinner K (2007) 5-Aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) induced formation of different fluorescent porphyrins: a study of the biosynthesis of porphyrins by bacteria of the human digestive tract. J Photochem Photobiol B 86: 77–86.
    1. Nitzan Y, Salmon-Divon M, Shporen E, Malik Z (2004) ALA induced photodynamic effects on gram positive and negative bacteria. Photochem Photobiol Sci 3: 430–435.
    1. Griswold A (2008) Pathogenicity: Microbial Virulence. Nature Education 1.
    1. Mueller C, Macpherson AJ (2006) Layers of mutualism with commensal bacteria protect us from intestinal inflammation. Gut 55: 276–284.
    1. Burke JP (2003) Infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 348: 651–656.
    1. Liu X, Wang D (2006) Image and texture segmentation using local spectral histograms. IEEE Trans Image Process 15: 3066–3077.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever