Elizabeth Villiers

Objective: To assess in vitro antibacterial efficacy of three cross‐linking (XL) protocols on bacteria associated with canine ulcerative keratitis.Methods: Three XL protocols: UVA 3 mW/cm² for 60 min, UVA 3 mW/cm² for 30 min, and UVA 30 mW/cm² for 3 min with and without application of riboflavin and a riboflavin‐only protocol were performed in vitro on the four most common bacterial genera isolated from cases of canine ulcerative keratitis treated at Dick White Referrals, UK. Zones of bacterial growth inhibition (GIZ) associated with treatment were measured and compared.Results: The four most common isolates were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) (48/140, 34.3%), Streptococcus spp. (32/140, 22.9%), Staphylococcus spp. (24/140, 17.1%) and Escherichia coli (EC) (11/140, 7.9%). PA, EC, Streptococcus canis (SC), and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (SP), isolated from canine corneas, were selected for testing. EC and SC demonstrated growth inhibition following all UVA/riboflavin protocols. PA and SP only displayed growth inhibition following the 60 min UVA/riboflavin protocol. GIZ areas for 60 min UVA/riboflavin protocols were significantly greater than 30 and 3 min UVA/riboflavin protocols (p < .01) and there was no significant difference between 30 and 3 min UVA/riboflavin protocols. In respect to GIZ areas, EC was significantly more susceptible to XL than SP (p = <.01).Conclusions: All UVA/riboflavin XL protocols caused growth inhibition of EC and SC in vitro. PA and SP did not show clear growth inhibition in vitro following exposure to XL protocol settings of UVA 3 mW/cm² for 30 min and UVA 30 mW/cm² for 3 min.

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare corneal culture results using the ESwab™ and Amies charcoal swab.Animals studied: One hundred fourteen canine and fifteen feline eyes.Procedures: Retrospective analysis of Dick White Referrals bacterial and fungal corneal culture data was conducted. Results were included from canine and feline patients, which presented with suspected infectious keratitis that had samples taken using an Amies charcoal swab followed by an ESwab™ in the same eye. In respect to positive and negative cultures, a McNemar test was conducted comparing instances of disagreement between swab types, and the Kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between swab types.Results: The ESwab™ produced more positive corneal cultures (71/129 [55.0%]) than the Amies charcoal swab (41/129 [31.8%]). 2/129 eyes produced positive fungal cultures. Considering 37/129 eyes in which both swab types detected a positive corneal culture, the same bacterial species were cultured from each swab type in 34/37 (91.9%) eyes, and an additional bacterial species was cultured by the ESwab™ in 3/37 (8.1%) eyes. In 34/38 (89.5%), instances of disagreement between swab types, the ESwab™ showed a positive culture, and the Amies charcoal swab showed a negative culture from the same eye, and this difference was significant (p < 0.0001). There was a moderate level of agreement between results from both swab types (κ = 0.432).Conclusions: ESwab™ sampling alone may be superior to Amies charcoal swabs for detecting presence of bacteria in suspected infectious keratitis in cats and dogs.