FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Surg / Wound swabs versus biopsies to detect methicillin resistant ...
Veterinary surgery : VS2022; 51(8); 1196-1205; doi: 10.1111/vsu.13872

Wound swabs versus biopsies to detect methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in experimental equine wounds.

Abstract: To compare: (1) the load and diversity of cultivatable bacterial species isolated from tissue biopsies with cultures from surface swabs, and (2) the ability of each technique to detect methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a model of MRSA-infected equine wounds. Methods: Experimental in vivo study. Methods: Three light-breed adult horses. Methods: Four 2.5 × 2.5 cm full-thickness skin wounds were created on the dorsolateral aspect of each forelimb. Five days later, each wound was inoculated with a pure culture of MRSA (ATCC 43300). One hundred microlitres of 0, 5 × 108 , 5 × 109 or 5 × 1010 colony forming units (CFU)/ml was used to inoculate each wound. Surface swabs (Levine technique) and tissue biopsy samples (3 mm punch biopsy) were obtained at 2, 7, 14, and 21 days after inoculation. Quantitative aerobic culture was performed using routine clinical techniques. Results: A similar bacterial profile was identified from the culture of each wound-sampling technique and there was moderate correlation (R = 0.49, P < .001) between the bacterial bioburdens. Agreement was fair (κ = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.129-0.505) between the sampling techniques in identification of MRSA. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was isolated more frequently (P = .016) from cultures of tissue biopsies (79%; 76/96) than from surface swabs (62%; 60/96). Conclusions: Bacterial load and diversity did not differ between sampling techniques but MRSA was detected more often from the cultures of tissue biopsies. Conclusions: Tissue biopsy should be preferred to culture swab in wounds where MRSA is suspected.
© 2022 American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-09-14 PubMed ID: 36102600PubMed Central: PMC9588683DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13872Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article discusses a study comparing the efficacy of surface swabs and tissue biopsies in detecting Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a model of MRSA-infected equine wounds.

Objective and Methodology

  • The researchers aimed to compare two factors: (1) the load and diversity of cultivatable bacterial species from tissue biopsies versus cultures from surface swabs and (2) the effectiveness of each technique in identifying MRSA in MRSA-infected horse wounds.
  • The study used three adult horses of a light breed. Four 2.5 × 2.5 cm full-thickness skin wounds were made on the dorsolateral aspect of each forelimb. After five days, these wounds were inoculated with a pure culture of MRSA (ATCC 43300), using four different concentrations of colony-forming units (CFU)/ml to treat each wound.
  • Surface swabs (using the Levine technique) and tissue biopsy samples (via 3 mm punch biopsy) were obtained on days 2, 7, 14, and 21 post-inoculation. Quantitative aerobic culture, a standard clinical procedure, was employed to analyze these samples.

Findings and Conclusions

  • The findings indicated similar bacterial profiles from the culture of both wound-sampling techniques, with a moderate correlation between the bacterial bio-burdens. Despite this, there was a fair agreement between the sampling methods in identifying MRSA.
  • MRSA was isolated more frequently from tissue biopsy cultures (79% of cases) than from surface swabs (62% of cases). This statistically significant difference confirmed that MRSA could be detected more often from the cultures of tissue biopsies.
  • Basing on these research findings, they concluded that while there was no significant difference in bacterial load and diversity between the two methods, tissue biopsies were more reliable in detecting MRSA. Therefore, when suspecting MRSA in wounds, tissue biopsy is a preferred choice over swab culture.

Cite This Article

APA
Brock AK, Chamoun-Emanuelli AM, Howard EA, Huntzinger KD, Lawhon SD, Bryan LK, Cosgriff-Hernandez EM, Cohen ND, Whitfield-Cargile CM. (2022). Wound swabs versus biopsies to detect methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in experimental equine wounds. Vet Surg, 51(8), 1196-1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13872

Publication

Veterinary surgery : VS
ISSN: 1532-950X
NlmUniqueID: 8113214
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 51
Issue: 8
Pages: 1196-1205

Researcher Affiliations

Brock, Abbi K
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Chamoun-Emanuelli, Ana M
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Howard, Emily A
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Huntzinger, Katie D
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Lawhon, Sara D
  • Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Bryan, Laura K
  • Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Cosgriff-Hernandez, Elizabeth M
  • Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cockrell School of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Cohen, Noah D
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Whitfield-Cargile, Canaan M
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses
  • Animals
  • Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
  • Staphylococcal Infections / diagnosis
  • Staphylococcal Infections / veterinary
  • Staphylococcal Infections / microbiology
  • Wound Infection / microbiology
  • Wound Infection / veterinary
  • Biopsy / veterinary
  • Specimen Handling / methods
  • Specimen Handling / veterinary
  • Horse Diseases / diagnosis

Grant Funding

  • R21 AR076107 / NIAMS NIH HHS
  • RGS 20-08 / Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M University
  • NIAMS R21AR076107 / NIH HHS

Conflict of Interest Statement

Conflicts of Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this report.

References

This article includes 59 references
  1. Theoret CL, Wilmink JM. Aberrant wound healing in the horse: naturally occurring conditions reminiscent of those observed in man.. Wound Repair Regen 2013;21(3):365–371.
    pubmed: 23441750
  2. Orsini JA, Elce Y, Kraus B. Management of severely infected wounds in the equine patient.. Clinical Techniques in Equine Practice 2004;3(2):225–236.
  3. Jørgensen E, Bjarnsholt T, Jacobsen S. Biofilm and Equine Limb Wounds.. Animals 2021;11(10):2825.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11102825pmc: PMC8532864pubmed: 34679846google scholar: lookup
  4. Westgate SJ, Percival SL, Knottenbelt DC, Clegg PD, Cochrane CA. Chronic equine wounds: what is the role of infection and biofilms?. Wounds: a Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice 2010;22(6):138–145.
    pubmed: 25901461
  5. Cochrane CA, Freeman K, Woods E, Welsby S, Percival SL. Biofilm evidence and the microbial diversity of horse wounds.. Can J Microbiol 2009;55(2):197–202.
    pubmed: 19295652
  6. Knych HK, Magdesian KG. Equine antimicrobial therapy: Current and past issues facing practitioners.. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2021;44(2):270–279.
    pubmed: 33650183
  7. Ludwig EK, van Harreveld PD. Equine wounds over synovial structures.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2018;34(3):575–590.
    pubmed: 30447770
  8. Hanson RR. Complications of equine wound management and dermatologic surgery.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2008;24(3):663–696.
    pubmed: 19203707
  9. Jacobs K, Leach D, Fretz P, Townsend H. Comparative aspects of the healing of excisional wounds on the leg and body of horses.. Vet Surg 1984;13(2):83–90.
  10. Lepault É, Céleste C, Doré M, Martineau D, Theoret CL. Comparative study on microvascular occlusion and apoptosis in body and limb wounds in the horse.. Wound Repair Regen 2005;13(5):520–529.
    pubmed: 16176461
  11. Adam EN, Southwood LL. Surgical and traumatic wound infections, cellulitis, and myositis in horses.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2006;22(2):335–361.
    pubmed: 16882479
  12. van Duijkeren E, Ten Horn L, Wagenaar JA. Suspected horse-to-human transmission of MRSA ST398.. Emerg Infect Dis 2011;17(6):1137–1139.
    pmc: PMC3358200pubmed: 21749795
  13. Weese J, Caldwell F, Willey B. An outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections resulting from horse to human transmission in a veterinary hospital.. Vet Microbiol 2006;114(1–2):160–164.
    pubmed: 16384660
  14. Weese JS, Archambault M, Willey B. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses and horse personnel, 2000–2002.. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11(3):430–435.
    pmc: PMC3298236pubmed: 15757559
  15. Cuny C, Witte W. MRSA in equine hospitals and its significance for infections in humans.. Vet Microbiol 2017;200:59–64.
    pubmed: 26869097
  16. Sack A, Oladunni FS, Gonchigoo B, Chambers TM, Gray GC. Zoonotic diseases from horses: A systematic review.. Vector-Borne Zoonot 2020;20(7):484–495.
    pmc: PMC7339018pubmed: 32077811
  17. Bergström K, Bengtsson B, Nyman A, Andersson UG. Longitudinal study of horses for carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus following wound infections.. Vet Microbiol 2013;163(3–4):388–391.
    pubmed: 23428383
  18. Weese JS, Rousseau J, Traub-Dargatz JL, Willey BM, McGeer AJ, Low DE. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses and humans who work with horses.. J Am Vet Med 2005;226(4):580–583.
    pubmed: 15742700
  19. Haalboom M, Blokhuis-Arkes MH, Beuk RJ. Wound swab and wound biopsy yield similar culture results.. Wound Repair Regen 2018;26(2):192–199.
    pubmed: 29603518
  20. Reddy M, Gill SS, Wu W, Kalkar SR, Rochon PA. Does this patient have an infection of a chronic wound?. J Am Med Assoc 2012;307(6):605–11.
    pubmed: 22318282
  21. Huang Y, Cao Y, Zou M. A comparison of tissue versus swab culturing of infected diabetic foot wounds.. Int J Endocrinol 2016;6:8198714.
    doi: 10.1155/2016/8198714pmc: PMC4829715pubmed: 27123004google scholar: lookup
  22. Esposito S, De Simone G, Gioia R. Deep tissue biopsy vs. superficial swab culture, including microbial loading determination, in the microbiological assessment of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections (SSTIs).. J Chemotherapy 2017;29(3):154–158.
    pubmed: 27376439
  23. Concannon TM, Kidd L, Osmond C, Dong F, Griffon D. Prospective evaluation of the influence of sampling method on bacterial culture results and antimicrobial selection in 52 dogs with infected wounds.. J Vet Emerg Crit Car 2020;30(2):149–158.
    pubmed: 32056364
  24. Van Hecke LL, Hermans K, Haspeslagh M. A quantitative swab is a good non-invasive alternative to a quantitative biopsy for quantifying bacterial load in wounds healing by second intention in horses.. Vet J 2017;225:63–68.
    pubmed: 28720301
  25. Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows I, Singh P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement.. 2019;R package version 0.84.1.
  26. Rondas AA, Schols JM, Halfens RJ, Stobberingh EE. Swab versus biopsy for the diagnosis of chronic infected wounds.. Adv Skin Wound Care 2013;26(5):211–9.
    pubmed: 23591095
  27. Lawless SP, Cohen ND, Lawhon SD. Effect of gallium maltolate on a model of chronic, infected equine distal limb wounds.. PLOS ONE 2020;15(6):e0235006.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235006pmc: PMC7304909pubmed: 32559258google scholar: lookup
  28. Harmon CCG, Hawkins JF, Li J. Effects of topical application of silver sulfadiazine cream, triple antimicrobial ointment, or hyperosmolar nanoemulsion on wound healing, bacterial load, and exuberant granulation tissue formation in bandaged full-thickness equine skin wounds.. Am J Vet Res 2017;78(5):638–646.
    pubmed: 28441045
  29. Liu T, Chen Y, Bi G. Generation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection in an immunosuppressed rat model.. Med Sci Monit 2017;7(23):5803–5811.
    doi: 10.12659/msm.907479pmc: PMC5730015pubmed: 29213029google scholar: lookup
  30. Levine NS, Lindberg RB, Mason AD Jr., Pruitt BA Jr.. The quantitative swab culture and smear: A quick, simple method for determining the number of viable aerobic bacteria on open wounds.. J Trauma 1976;16(2):89–94.
    pubmed: 1255833
  31. Gardner SE, Frantz RA, Saltzman CL, Hillis SL, Park H, Scherubel M. Diagnostic validity of three swab techniques for identifying chronic wound infection.. Wound Repair Regen 2006;14(5):548–557.
    pubmed: 17014666
  32. Breakwell D, MacDonald B, Woolverton C, Smith K, Robison R. Colony morphology protocol.. American Society for Microbiology 2007:1–7.
  33. Florio W, Tavanti A, Barnini S, Ghelardi E, Lupetti A. Recent advances and ongoing challenges in the diagnosis of microbial infections by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry.. Front Microbiol 2018;29(9):1097.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01097pmc: PMC5986882pubmed: 29896172google scholar: lookup
  34. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.. 2021.
  35. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.. J Stat Softw 2015;67:1–48.
  36. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RC. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models.. R package version 2007;3(57):1–89.
  37. Searle SR, Speed FM, Milliken GA. Population marginal means in the linear model: an alternative to least squares means.. Am Stat 1980;34(4):216–221.
  38. Bendy RH Jr., Nuccio PA, Wolfe E. Relationship of quantitative wound bacterial counts to healing of decubiti: effect of topical gentamicin.. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda) 1964;10:147–55.
    pubmed: 14287920
  39. Robson MC, Lea CE, Dalton JB, Heggers JP. Quantitative bacteriology and delayed wound closure.. Surg Forum 1968;19:501–2.
    pubmed: 4887826
  40. Westgate SJ, Percival SL, Knottenbelt DC, Clegg PD, Cochrane CA. Microbiology of equine wounds and evidence of bacterial biofilms.. Vet Microbiol 2011;150(1):152–159.
    pubmed: 21273008
  41. Kamus LJ, Theoret C, Costa MC. Use of next generation sequencing to investigate the microbiota of experimentally induced wounds and the effect of bandaging in horses.. PLOS ONE 2018;13(11):e0206989.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206989pmc: PMC6261015pubmed: 30475922google scholar: lookup
  42. Abreo E, Altier N. Pangenome of Serratia marcescens strains from nosocomial and environmental origins reveals different populations and the links between them.. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):46.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37118-0pmc: PMC6328595pubmed: 30631083google scholar: lookup
  43. Bond SL, Timsit E, Workentine M, Alexander T, Léguillette R. Upper and lower respiratory tract microbiota in horses: bacterial communities associated with health and mild asthma (inflammatory airway disease) and effects of dexamethasone.. BMC Microbiol 2017;17(1):184.
    doi: 10.1186/s12866-017-1092-5pmc: PMC5569571pubmed: 28835202google scholar: lookup
  44. Kämpfer P, Glaeser SP. Serratia aquatilis sp. nov., isolated from drinking water systems.. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016;66(1):407–413.
    doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.000731pubmed: 26537514google scholar: lookup
  45. Colahan PT, Peyton LC, Connelly MR, Peterson R. Serratia spp infection in 21 horses.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984;185(2):209–11.
    pubmed: 6746391
  46. Vincze S, Stamm I, Kopp PA. Alarming Proportions of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Wound Samples from Companion Animals, Germany 2010–2012.. PLOS ONE 2014;9(1):e85656.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085656pmc: PMC3896405pubmed: 24465637google scholar: lookup
  47. Copeland-Halperin LR, Kaminsky AJ, Bluefeld N, Miraliakbari R. Sample procurement for cultures of infected wounds: a systematic review.. J Wound Care 2016;25(4):S4–6, s8–10.
    doi: 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup4.S4pubmed: 27068349google scholar: lookup
  48. Pellizzer G, Strazzabosco M, Presi S. Deep tissue biopsy vs. superficial swab culture monitoring in the microbiological assessment of limb-threatening diabetic foot infection.. Diabet Med 2001;18(10):822–7.
    pubmed: 11678973
  49. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB. 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54(12):e132–73.
    doi: 10.1093/cid/cis346pubmed: 22619242google scholar: lookup
  50. Lipsky BA, Senneville É, Abbas ZG. Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2020;36 Suppl 1:e3280.
    doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3280pubmed: 32176444google scholar: lookup
  51. Mohammad H, Abutaleb NS, Seleem MN. Auranofin Rapidly Eradicates Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in an Infected Pressure Ulcer Mouse Model.. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):7251.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64352-2pmc: PMC7190694pubmed: 32350417google scholar: lookup
  52. Simonetti O, Cirioni O, Goteri G. Efficacy of Cathelicidin LL-37 in an MRSA Wound Infection Mouse Model.. Antibiotics (Basel) 2021;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10101210pmc: PMC8532939pubmed: 34680791google scholar: lookup
  53. Pollitt EJG, Diggle SP. Defining motility in the Staphylococci.. Cell Mol Life Sci 2017;74(16):2943–2958.
    doi: 10.1007/s00018-017-2507-zpmc: PMC5501909pubmed: 28378043google scholar: lookup
  54. Tedeschi S, Negosanti L, Sgarzani R. Superficial swab versus deep-tissue biopsy for the microbiological diagnosis of local infection in advanced-stage pressure ulcers of spinal-cord-injured patients: a prospective study.. Clin Microbiol Infec 2017;23(12):943–947.
    pubmed: 28433727
  55. Ender M, McCallum N, Adhikari R, Berger-Bächi B. Fitness cost of SCCmec and methicillin resistance levels in Staphylococcus aureus.. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48(6):2295–7.
    pmc: PMC415608pubmed: 15155238
  56. Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Møller K. Nonrandom distribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in chronic wounds.. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47(12):4084–4089.
    pmc: PMC2786634pubmed: 19812273
  57. Schultz G, Bjarnsholt T, James GA. Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds.. Wound Repair Regen 2017;25(5):744–757.
    pubmed: 28960634
  58. Angel DE, Lloyd P, Carville K, Santamaria N. The clinical efficacy of two semi-quantitative wound-swabbing techniques in identifying the causative organism(s) in infected cutaneous wounds.. Int Wound J 2011;8(2):176–85.
    pmc: PMC7950681pubmed: 21303456
  59. Mahnic A, Breznik V, Bombek Ihan M, Rupnik M. Comparison Between Cultivation and Sequencing Based Approaches for Microbiota Analysis in Swabs and Biopsies of Chronic Wounds.. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:607255.
    doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.607255pmc: PMC8211761pubmed: 34150786google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Lan Z, Guo L, Fletcher A, Ang N, Whitfield-Cargile C, Bryan L, Welch S, Richardson L, Cosgriff-Hernandez E. Antimicrobial hydrogel foam dressing with controlled release of gallium maltolate for infection control in chronic wounds. Bioact Mater 2024 Dec;42:433-448.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.08.044pubmed: 39308545google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.