Cargando…

Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery

BACKGROUND: Sepsis and other infectious complications are major causes of mortality and morbidity in patients after cardiac surgery. Whereas conventional blood culture (BC) suffers from low sensitivity as well as a reporting delay of approximately 48–72 h, real-time multiplex polymerase chain reacti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pilarczyk, Kevin, Rath, Peter-Michael, Steinmann, Joerg, Thielmann, Matthias, Padosch, Stephan A., Dürbeck, Max, Jakob, Heinz, Dusse, Fabian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31014255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0727-5
_version_ 1783413585405280256
author Pilarczyk, Kevin
Rath, Peter-Michael
Steinmann, Joerg
Thielmann, Matthias
Padosch, Stephan A.
Dürbeck, Max
Jakob, Heinz
Dusse, Fabian
author_facet Pilarczyk, Kevin
Rath, Peter-Michael
Steinmann, Joerg
Thielmann, Matthias
Padosch, Stephan A.
Dürbeck, Max
Jakob, Heinz
Dusse, Fabian
author_sort Pilarczyk, Kevin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sepsis and other infectious complications are major causes of mortality and morbidity in patients after cardiac surgery. Whereas conventional blood culture (BC) suffers from low sensitivity as well as a reporting delay of approximately 48–72 h, real-time multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based technologies like “SeptiFast” (SF) might offer a fast and reliable alternative for detection of bloodstream infections (BSI). The aim of this study was to compare the performance of SF with BC testing in patients suspected of having BSI after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-nine blood samples from 169 individuals with suspected BSI were analyzed by SF and BC. After excluding results attributable to contaminants, a comparison between the two groups were carried out. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the accuracy of clinical and laboratory values for the prediction of positive SF results. RESULTS: 14.7% (n = 41) of blood samples were positive using SF and 17.2% (n = 49) using BC (n.s. [p > 0.05]). In six samples SF detected more than one pathogen. Among the 47 microorganisms identified by SF, only 11 (23.4%) could be confirmed by BC. SF identified a higher number of Gram-negative bacteria than BC did (28 vs. 12, χ(2) = 7.97, p = 0.005). The combination of BC and SF increased the number of detected microorganisms, including fungi, compared to BC alone (86 vs. 49, χ(2) = 13.51, p < 0.001). C-reactive protein (CRP) (21.7 ± 11.41 vs. 16.0 ± 16.9 mg/dl, p = 0.009), procalcitonin (28.7 ± 70.9 vs. 11.5 ± 30.4 ng/dl, p = 0.015), and interleukin 6 (IL 6) (932.3 ± 1306.7 vs. 313.3 ± 686.6 pg/ml, p = 0.010) plasma concentrations were higher in patients with a positive SF result. Using ROC analysis, IL-6 (AUC 0.836) and CRP (AUC 0.804) showed the best predictive values for positive SF results. CONCLUSION: The SF test represent a valuable method for rapid etiologic diagnosis of BSI in patients after cardiothoracic surgery. In particular this method applies for individuals with suspected Gram-negative blood stream. Due to the low performance in detecting Gram-positive pathogens and the inability to determine antibiotic susceptibility, it should be used in addition to BC only (Pilarczyk K, et al., Intensive Care Med Exp ,3(Suppl. 1):A884, 2015).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6480519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64805192019-05-01 Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery Pilarczyk, Kevin Rath, Peter-Michael Steinmann, Joerg Thielmann, Matthias Padosch, Stephan A. Dürbeck, Max Jakob, Heinz Dusse, Fabian BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Sepsis and other infectious complications are major causes of mortality and morbidity in patients after cardiac surgery. Whereas conventional blood culture (BC) suffers from low sensitivity as well as a reporting delay of approximately 48–72 h, real-time multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based technologies like “SeptiFast” (SF) might offer a fast and reliable alternative for detection of bloodstream infections (BSI). The aim of this study was to compare the performance of SF with BC testing in patients suspected of having BSI after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-nine blood samples from 169 individuals with suspected BSI were analyzed by SF and BC. After excluding results attributable to contaminants, a comparison between the two groups were carried out. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the accuracy of clinical and laboratory values for the prediction of positive SF results. RESULTS: 14.7% (n = 41) of blood samples were positive using SF and 17.2% (n = 49) using BC (n.s. [p > 0.05]). In six samples SF detected more than one pathogen. Among the 47 microorganisms identified by SF, only 11 (23.4%) could be confirmed by BC. SF identified a higher number of Gram-negative bacteria than BC did (28 vs. 12, χ(2) = 7.97, p = 0.005). The combination of BC and SF increased the number of detected microorganisms, including fungi, compared to BC alone (86 vs. 49, χ(2) = 13.51, p < 0.001). C-reactive protein (CRP) (21.7 ± 11.41 vs. 16.0 ± 16.9 mg/dl, p = 0.009), procalcitonin (28.7 ± 70.9 vs. 11.5 ± 30.4 ng/dl, p = 0.015), and interleukin 6 (IL 6) (932.3 ± 1306.7 vs. 313.3 ± 686.6 pg/ml, p = 0.010) plasma concentrations were higher in patients with a positive SF result. Using ROC analysis, IL-6 (AUC 0.836) and CRP (AUC 0.804) showed the best predictive values for positive SF results. CONCLUSION: The SF test represent a valuable method for rapid etiologic diagnosis of BSI in patients after cardiothoracic surgery. In particular this method applies for individuals with suspected Gram-negative blood stream. Due to the low performance in detecting Gram-positive pathogens and the inability to determine antibiotic susceptibility, it should be used in addition to BC only (Pilarczyk K, et al., Intensive Care Med Exp ,3(Suppl. 1):A884, 2015). BioMed Central 2019-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6480519/ /pubmed/31014255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0727-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pilarczyk, Kevin
Rath, Peter-Michael
Steinmann, Joerg
Thielmann, Matthias
Padosch, Stephan A.
Dürbeck, Max
Jakob, Heinz
Dusse, Fabian
Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
title Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
title_full Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
title_fullStr Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
title_full_unstemmed Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
title_short Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
title_sort multiplex polymerase chain reaction to diagnose bloodstream infections in patients after cardiothoracic surgery
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31014255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0727-5
work_keys_str_mv AT pilarczykkevin multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT rathpetermichael multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT steinmannjoerg multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT thielmannmatthias multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT padoschstephana multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT durbeckmax multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT jakobheinz multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery
AT dussefabian multiplexpolymerasechainreactiontodiagnosebloodstreaminfectionsinpatientsaftercardiothoracicsurgery