Vincent Jean-Louis, Brealey David, Libert Nicolas, Abidi Nour Elhouda, O'Dwyer Michael, Zacharowski Kai, Mikaszewska-Sokolewicz Malgorzata, Schrenzel Jacques, Simon François, Wilks Mark, Picard-Maureau Marcus, Chalfin Donald B, Ecker David J, Sampath Rangarajan, Singer Mervyn
1Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 2Division of Critical Care, University College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Bloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 3Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Val de Grâce Military Hospital, Paris, France. 4Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Intensive Care, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 5Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London and Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. 6Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 71st Clinic of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care of Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland. 8Genomic Research Laboratory, Department of Internal Medicine, Service of Infectious Diseases, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 9Department of Microbiology, Saint Louis University Hospital, Paris, France. 10Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden, Germany. 11Ibis Biosciences, Abbott, Carlsbad, CA.
Crit Care Med. 2015 Nov;43(11):2283-91. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001249.
Early identification of causative microorganism(s) in patients with severe infection is crucial to optimize antimicrobial use and patient survival. However, current culture-based pathogen identification is slow and unreliable such that broad-spectrum antibiotics are often used to insure coverage of all potential organisms, carrying risks of overtreatment, toxicity, and selection of multidrug-resistant bacteria. We compared the results obtained using a novel, culture-independent polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry technology with those obtained by standard microbiological testing and evaluated the potential clinical implications of this technique.
Observational study.
Nine ICUs in six European countries.
Patients admitted between October 2013 and June 2014 with suspected or proven bloodstream infection, pneumonia, or sterile fluid and tissue infection were considered for inclusion.
None.
We tested 616 bloodstream infection, 185 pneumonia, and 110 sterile fluid and tissue specimens from 529 patients. From the 616 bloodstream infection samples, polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry identified a pathogen in 228 cases (37%) and culture in just 68 (11%). Culture was positive and polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry negative in 13 cases, and both were negative in 384 cases, giving polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 69%, and negative predictive value of 97% at 6 hours from sample acquisition. The distribution of organisms was similar with both techniques. Similar observations were made for pneumonia and sterile fluid and tissue specimens. Independent clinical analysis of results suggested that polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry technology could potentially have resulted in altered treatment in up to 57% of patients.
Polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry provides rapid pathogen identification in critically ill patients. The ability to rule out infection within 6 hours has potential clinical and economic benefits.
早期识别重症感染患者的致病微生物对于优化抗菌药物使用及提高患者生存率至关重要。然而,当前基于培养的病原体鉴定方法既缓慢又不可靠,以至于常使用广谱抗生素以确保覆盖所有潜在病原体,这带来了过度治疗、毒性反应以及多重耐药菌产生的风险。我们比较了使用一种新型的、不依赖培养的聚合酶链反应/电喷雾电离质谱技术所获得的结果与标准微生物检测结果,并评估了该技术的潜在临床意义。
观察性研究。
六个欧洲国家的九个重症监护病房。
纳入2013年10月至2014年6月期间收治的疑似或确诊血流感染、肺炎或无菌体液及组织感染的患者。
无。
我们检测了来自529例患者的616份血流感染样本、185份肺炎样本以及110份无菌体液及组织样本。在616份血流感染样本中,聚合酶链反应/电喷雾电离质谱法在228例(37%)中鉴定出病原体,而培养法仅在68例(11%)中鉴定出病原体。13例培养结果为阳性而聚合酶链反应/电喷雾电离质谱法结果为阴性,384例两者均为阴性,这使得聚合酶链反应/电喷雾电离质谱法在样本采集后6小时时的灵敏度为81%,特异性为69%,阴性预测值为97%。两种技术所鉴定出的病原体分布相似。对肺炎样本以及无菌体液及组织样本也有类似的观察结果。对结果进行的独立临床分析表明,聚合酶链反应/电喷雾电离质谱技术可能会使高达57%的患者治疗方案发生改变。
聚合酶链反应/电喷雾电离质谱法可为重症患者快速鉴定病原体。在6小时内排除感染的能力具有潜在的临床和经济效益。