TASK Applied Science, 1 Smal Street, Bellville, 7530, South Africa.
TASK Applied Science, 1 Smal Street, Bellville, 7530, South Africa; Division of Medical Physiology, MRC Centre for Tuberculosis Research, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence for Biomedical Tuberculosis Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa.
Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2019 May;116:17-21. doi: 10.1016/j.tube.2019.03.008. Epub 2019 Mar 28.
Mycobacterial sputum culture is a key diagnostic and research tool.
To compare mycobacterial culture outcomes of three sputum collection methods.
We compared culture results within sets of three sputum samples collected from 18 HIV-infected adult tuberculosis patients at regular intervals up to 84 days after treatment initiation. The first sputum was collected at home and brought to the clinic, where a second and third sputum were consecutively collected under supervision following mouthwash with bottled water and chlorhexidine solution respectively. All sputa were processed for liquid culture in duplicate.
Out of 556 cultures 430 (77.3%), 91 (16.4%) and 35 (6.3%) were positive, negative or contaminated, respectively. The odds of contamination were higher with home collection and with water rinse than with chlorhexidine rinse (OR: 12.5, p < 0.001 and OR: 6.7, p = 0.015). Chlorhexidine rinse increased the odds of a negative culture compared to water rinse (OR: 3.5, p = 0.002). The odds of a positive culture were greater with water rinse than with home collection (OR: 2.5, p = 0.005). Water rinse significantly reduced time to culture positivity.
Compared to sputum collected at home, chlorhexidine rinse reduces culture contamination and water rinse increases the rate and viable mycobacterial load of positive cultures.
分枝杆菌痰培养是一种重要的诊断和研究工具。
比较三种痰采集方法的分枝杆菌培养结果。
我们比较了 18 例 HIV 感染的成人肺结核患者在治疗开始后 84 天内定期采集的三组痰标本的培养结果。第一份痰标本在家中采集并带到诊所,然后在使用瓶装水和洗必泰溶液漱口后分别连续采集第二份和第三份痰标本。所有痰液均进行液体培养,一式两份。
在 556 次培养中,430 次(77.3%)、91 次(16.4%)和 35 次(6.3%)分别为阳性、阴性或污染。与家庭采集和水冲洗相比,家庭采集和水冲洗更容易发生污染(OR:12.5,p<0.001 和 OR:6.7,p=0.015)。与水冲洗相比,洗必泰冲洗增加了培养阴性的几率(OR:3.5,p=0.002)。与家庭采集相比,水冲洗更有可能获得阳性培养(OR:2.5,p=0.005)。水冲洗显著缩短了培养阳性的时间。
与家庭采集的痰标本相比,洗必泰冲洗可减少培养污染,水冲洗可增加阳性培养的阳性率和可培养分枝杆菌负荷。