Cargando…

1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children

BACKGROUND: Urinalysis (UA) has been routinely used as a screening tool prior to microbial culture set-up in many laboratories. BacterioScan 216Dx instrument utilizes laser light scattering technology to detect bacterial growth in urine and results are available in 3 hours. The aim of this study was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hassan, Ferdaus, Bushnell, Heather, Taggart, Connie, Gibbs, Caitlin, Hiraki, Steven, Formanek, Ashley, Gripka, Megan, Selvarangan, Rangaraj
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254320/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1645
_version_ 1783373696288686080
author Hassan, Ferdaus
Bushnell, Heather
Taggart, Connie
Gibbs, Caitlin
Hiraki, Steven
Formanek, Ashley
Gripka, Megan
Selvarangan, Rangaraj
author_facet Hassan, Ferdaus
Bushnell, Heather
Taggart, Connie
Gibbs, Caitlin
Hiraki, Steven
Formanek, Ashley
Gripka, Megan
Selvarangan, Rangaraj
author_sort Hassan, Ferdaus
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Urinalysis (UA) has been routinely used as a screening tool prior to microbial culture set-up in many laboratories. BacterioScan 216Dx instrument utilizes laser light scattering technology to detect bacterial growth in urine and results are available in 3 hours. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 216 DX and UA against culture as gold standard. METHODS: Clean-catch, unpreserved, either UA positive (leukocyte esterase > trace, or nitrite positive or white blood cells >5/hpf) or UA negative samples from children aged ≤18 years were tested by 216Dx within 24 hours of sample collection. “ Likely positive” samples by 216Dx were tested by MALDI-TOF for direct bacterial identification. Sensitivity and specificity of 216Dx and UA was determined against urine culture. RESULTS: Total of 205 urine samples were included in this study, of which 48.0% (98/205) and 52.0% (107/205) were UA positive and negative, respectively. 77.0% of samples were collected from female and median age was 108 months. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of 216Dx and UA are shown in table below. Of 27 true positive (TP) samples by 216Dx, 77.0% (21/27) were successfully identified by MALDI-TOF. There were a total of 96 samples identified as contamination/normal flora by culture. Among these, 63 samples (65.0%) were detected as true negative (TN) by 216Dx vs. 50 samples (53.1%) as TN by UA. Two false negative (FN) samples by 216Dx and one FN by UA were K. oxytoca, S. epidermidis (both >100 K cfu/ml) and E. coli (>100 K cfu/mL), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although sensitivity of both 216Dx and UA is comparable, specificity of 216Dx was higher than UA. Also, 216Dx showed better performance in detecting urine contamination, thus reducing laboratory reagent and labor cost. Faster turn-around-time of 216Dx coupled with rapid identification of uropathogen by MALDI-TOF has the potential to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, improve patient management and reduce overall healthcare-related cost. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6254320
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62543202018-11-28 1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children Hassan, Ferdaus Bushnell, Heather Taggart, Connie Gibbs, Caitlin Hiraki, Steven Formanek, Ashley Gripka, Megan Selvarangan, Rangaraj Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Urinalysis (UA) has been routinely used as a screening tool prior to microbial culture set-up in many laboratories. BacterioScan 216Dx instrument utilizes laser light scattering technology to detect bacterial growth in urine and results are available in 3 hours. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 216 DX and UA against culture as gold standard. METHODS: Clean-catch, unpreserved, either UA positive (leukocyte esterase > trace, or nitrite positive or white blood cells >5/hpf) or UA negative samples from children aged ≤18 years were tested by 216Dx within 24 hours of sample collection. “ Likely positive” samples by 216Dx were tested by MALDI-TOF for direct bacterial identification. Sensitivity and specificity of 216Dx and UA was determined against urine culture. RESULTS: Total of 205 urine samples were included in this study, of which 48.0% (98/205) and 52.0% (107/205) were UA positive and negative, respectively. 77.0% of samples were collected from female and median age was 108 months. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of 216Dx and UA are shown in table below. Of 27 true positive (TP) samples by 216Dx, 77.0% (21/27) were successfully identified by MALDI-TOF. There were a total of 96 samples identified as contamination/normal flora by culture. Among these, 63 samples (65.0%) were detected as true negative (TN) by 216Dx vs. 50 samples (53.1%) as TN by UA. Two false negative (FN) samples by 216Dx and one FN by UA were K. oxytoca, S. epidermidis (both >100 K cfu/ml) and E. coli (>100 K cfu/mL), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although sensitivity of both 216Dx and UA is comparable, specificity of 216Dx was higher than UA. Also, 216Dx showed better performance in detecting urine contamination, thus reducing laboratory reagent and labor cost. Faster turn-around-time of 216Dx coupled with rapid identification of uropathogen by MALDI-TOF has the potential to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, improve patient management and reduce overall healthcare-related cost. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6254320/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1645 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Hassan, Ferdaus
Bushnell, Heather
Taggart, Connie
Gibbs, Caitlin
Hiraki, Steven
Formanek, Ashley
Gripka, Megan
Selvarangan, Rangaraj
1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children
title 1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children
title_full 1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children
title_fullStr 1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children
title_full_unstemmed 1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children
title_short 1989. Evaluation of Laser Light Scattering Technology in Rapid Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children
title_sort 1989. evaluation of laser light scattering technology in rapid diagnosis of urinary tract infections in children
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254320/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1645
work_keys_str_mv AT hassanferdaus 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT bushnellheather 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT taggartconnie 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT gibbscaitlin 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT hirakisteven 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT formanekashley 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT gripkamegan 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren
AT selvaranganrangaraj 1989evaluationoflaserlightscatteringtechnologyinrapiddiagnosisofurinarytractinfectionsinchildren