Slobbe Lennert, El Barzouhi Abdelilah, Boersma Eric, Rijnders Bart J A
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Apr;47(4):885-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00998-08. Epub 2009 Jan 26.
Diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) still often involves tip culture. The conventional method is the semiquantitative roll plate method. However, the use of a quantitative sonication technique could have additional value, as it may detect endoluminal microorganisms more easily. Because endoluminal infection tends to occur in long-term central venous catheters, we compared both techniques for patients with long-term tunnelled catheters. For 313 consecutive Hickman catheter tips from 279 hematological patients, colonization detection rates were compared by performing both techniques in a random order, using conventional detection cutoffs. Additionally, for the subgroup of patients with clinical suspicion of CRBSI (n = 89), the diagnostic values of both techniques were compared. The overall tip colonization rate was 25%. For each technique, the detection rate tended to be better if that technique was performed first. The diagnostic performance for the subgroup of patients with clinical suspicion of CRBSI was limited and not different for both methods. Sensitivity and specificity were 45% and 84%, respectively, for sonication versus 35% and 90%, respectively, for the roll plate technique. The fact that 35 of 40 patients with CRBSI received antimicrobial therapy before catheter removal and tip culture, in an attempt to salvage the catheter, may partly explain this poor performance. No differences were observed when catheters were stratified according to in situ time below or above the median of 4 weeks. The sonication culture technique was not better than the roll plate method to diagnose tip colonization or CRBSI in patients with long-term tunnelled catheters.
诊断导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)通常仍需进行尖端培养。传统方法是半定量滚平板法。然而,定量超声处理技术的应用可能具有额外价值,因为它可能更容易检测到腔内微生物。由于腔内感染往往发生在长期中心静脉导管中,我们对长期带隧道导管的患者比较了这两种技术。对于来自279例血液学患者的313根连续的希克曼导管尖端,通过随机顺序采用这两种技术并使用传统检测临界值来比较定植检测率。此外,对于临床怀疑患有CRBSI的患者亚组(n = 89),比较了这两种技术的诊断价值。总体尖端定植率为25%。对于每种技术,如果首先进行该技术,检测率往往更高。对于临床怀疑患有CRBSI的患者亚组,诊断性能有限,两种方法之间没有差异。超声处理的敏感性和特异性分别为45%和84%,而滚平板技术分别为35%和90%。40例CRBSI患者中有35例在拔除导管和进行尖端培养之前接受了抗菌治疗,试图挽救导管,这一事实可能部分解释了这种不佳的表现。根据导管在位时间低于或高于4周中位数进行分层时,未观察到差异。在诊断长期带隧道导管患者的尖端定植或CRBSI方面,超声培养技术并不优于滚平板法。