ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Prospective evaluation of the Moleculight i:X™ in the early detection of driveline infections.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDriveline infection (DLI) is a common complication in patients with left ventricular assist devices. This complication can seriously undermine quality of life while on left ventricular assist devices. Current diagnosis of a DLI in the outpatient setting is based on clinical examination and later bacteria isolation. The Moleculight i:XTM is a handheld fluorescence imaging device capable to visualize bacterial colonization in real-time. We here evaluated the performance of the Moleculight i:XTM for diagnosis of DLIs as this device may have the potential advantage to rapidly identify infection and therefore promptly influence therapy.
methodsA total of 107 examinations in patients with suspected DLIs were prospectively included in this study. All examinations took place in the outpatient setting. In addition to the standard treatment, Moleculight fluorescence images were captured and swabs were taken at the area of maximal luminosity. Wounds and pictures were reviewed and classified as positive or negative by a wound specialist and two heart surgeons independently from microbiological results.
resultsThe Moleculight i:XTM showed positive results (red fluorescence) in 19 cases (17.76%), whereas microbiological examination was positive for microorganisms in 74 cases (69.16%). The most common bacteria was Staphylococcus aureus. The findings resulted in a sensitivity of 13.51% and a specificity of 72.73%. The positive predictive value was 52.63% and the negative predictive value was 27.27%. Sub-analyses of different wound dressings or previous antibiotic treatment did not show any relevant difference.
conclusionsThe results of the Moleculight i:X show a low sensitivity and specificity when being used to detect DLIs in the outpatient setting. Clinical examination and swabs should remain the gold standard despite the delay for bacteria isolation and consequent antibiotic treatment. Sensitivity and specificity of the Moleculight i:X in open wounds after surgical revision of the driveline remain to be clarified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.