Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How wound sampling method affects bacteria tests and antibiotic
By Concannon, Timothy M et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2020·California Veterinary Specialists, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Prospective evaluation of the influence of sampling method on bacterial culture results and antimicrobial selection in 52 dogs with infected wounds.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 52 dogs with infected wounds was studied to see how different sampling methods affected the types of bacteria found and the antibiotics chosen for treatment. The dogs' wounds were sampled using three techniques: dirty swabs, clean swabs after cleaning the wound, and biopsies. While the biopsy samples showed fewer types of bacteria, the choice of antibiotics did not change significantly based on the sampling method. This means that regardless of how the wound was sampled, the veterinarians were able to select effective antibiotics for treatment.
People also search for: dog infected wound treatment · dog wound care antibiotics · how to treat dog skin infection
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of sampling methods on culture results and selection of antimicrobials for treating infected wounds in dogs. DESIGN: Prospective study from January to July 2016. SETTING: Three private multispecialty referral centers. ANIMALS: Fifty-two client-owned dogs with infected wounds. INTERVENTIONS: Each wound was sampled for culture by 3 methods: swabbing prior to preparation (dirty swabs), swabbing after debridement and sterile lavage (clean swabs), and biopsy. Bacterial species and phenotypes were compared. Three clinicians unaware of patient, wound, and sampling information selected antimicrobial drugs based on culture and sensitivity reports. Antimicrobials were divided into class I, II, or III based on established guidelines. The number, highest class of antimicrobial chosen, and inter-investigator agreement were examined. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Identical populations of bacteria were isolated for all 3 sampling techniques in only 31% of wounds. Significantly fewer bacterial species were isolated from biopsy samples (1.87 bacterial species per wound ± 1.14) than from clean swab samples (2.29 ± 1.18; P = 0.009) but not dirty swab samples (2.29 ± 1.29; P = 0.06). The recovery frequency for gram-positive bacteria was lower for biopsy compared to either swabbing technique (P = 0.001 for both comparisons). No difference was observed between clean and dirty swabbing techniques for any parameter examined. Sampling technique did not affect the proportion of wounds with anaerobic, gram-negative, or multi-drug resistant bacteria. The number (P = 0.28) and highest class of antimicrobial (P = 0.9) selected per wound did not differ between the 3 sampling techniques (P = 0.28). Clinician agreement was 83-90% depending on sampling technique. CONCLUSION: Although there were some differences in bacteria isolated from biopsy samples compared to swab samples from infected wounds, technique did not influence the number and highest class of antimicrobial selected by clinicians. Wound debridement prior to sampling by swabbing did not alter the number or type of bacteria isolated, nor the number or the highest class of antimicrobial selected by clinicians.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32056364/