Suppr超能文献

比较 BioFire 联合感染面板与基于 16S 核糖体 RNA 基因的靶向宏基因组测序,用于检测膝关节置换失败患者的关节液。

Comparison of the BioFire Joint Infection Panel to 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene-Based Targeted Metagenomic Sequencing for Testing Synovial Fluid from Patients with Knee Arthroplasty Failure.

机构信息

Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinicgrid.66875.3a, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinicgrid.66875.3a, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 2022 Dec 21;60(12):e0112622. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01126-22. Epub 2022 Nov 21.

Abstract

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is challenging, often requiring multiple clinical specimens and diagnostic techniques, some with prolonged result turnaround times. Here, the diagnostic performance of the Investigational Use Only (IUO) BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel was compared to 16S rRNA gene-based targeted metagenomic sequencing (tMGS) applied to synovial fluid for PJI diagnosis. Sixty synovial fluid samples from knee arthroplasty failure archived at -80°C were tested. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) diagnostic criteria were used to classify PJI. For culture-positive PJI with pathogens targeted by the JI panel, JI panel sensitivity was 91% (21/23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 73 to 98%), and tMGS sensitivity was 96% (23/24; 95% CI, 80 to 99%) ( = 0.56). Overall sensitivities of the JI panel and tMGS for PJI diagnosis were 56% (24/43; 95% CI, 41 to 70%) and 93% (41/44; 95% CI, 82 to 98%), respectively ( < 0.001). JI panel and tMGS overall specificities were 100% (16/16; 95% CI, 81 to 100%) and 94% (15/16; 95% CI, 72 to 99%), respectively. While the clinical sensitivity of the JI panel was excellent for on-panel microorganisms, overall sensitivity for PJI diagnosis was low due to the absence of Staphylococcus epidermidis, a common causative pathogen of PJI, on the panel. A PJI diagnostic algorithm for the use of both molecular tests is proposed.

摘要

假体周围关节感染(PJI)的诊断具有挑战性,通常需要多个临床标本和诊断技术,其中一些需要较长的检测周转时间。在此,比较了仅限研究使用(IUO)的 BioFire 关节感染(JI)面板与针对滑液的基于 16S rRNA 基因的靶向宏基因组测序(tMGS)在 PJI 诊断中的诊断性能。测试了 60 份保存在-80°C 的膝关节置换失败的关节滑液存档样本。使用感染病学会(IDSA)诊断标准对 PJI 进行分类。对于 JI 面板靶向病原体的培养阳性 PJI,JI 面板的敏感性为 91%(21/23;95%置信区间 [CI],73 至 98%),tMGS 敏感性为 96%(23/24;95%CI,80 至 99%)(=0.56)。JI 面板和 tMGS 用于 PJI 诊断的总体敏感性分别为 56%(24/43;95%CI,41 至 70%)和 93%(41/44;95%CI,82 至 98%)(<0.001)。JI 面板和 tMGS 的总体特异性分别为 100%(16/16;95%CI,81 至 100%)和 94%(15/16;95%CI,72 至 99%)。虽然 JI 面板针对面板上的微生物具有出色的临床敏感性,但由于面板上缺少表皮葡萄球菌(一种常见的 PJI 病原体),因此整体 PJI 诊断敏感性较低。提出了一种用于两种分子检测的 PJI 诊断算法。

相似文献

4
The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1309-1314.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078. Epub 2018 Feb 26.
5
Synovial Fluid Viscosity Test is Promising for the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jun;34(6):1197-1200. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.009. Epub 2019 Feb 13.
6
Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: has the era of the biomarker arrived?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Nov;472(11):3254-62. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3543-8.
7
Validation of the Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021 Jan 20;103(2):115-122. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00749.
8
Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Inflammatory Arthritis: Assumption Is the Enemy of True Understanding.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Nov;33(11):3561-3566. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.07.016. Epub 2018 Jul 24.

引用本文的文献

4
BioFire in osteoarticular Infections: Rapid syndromic testing for early and accurate diagnosis - A narrative review.
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025 May 8;67:103038. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2025.103038. eCollection 2025 Aug.
5
Performance evaluation of a commercial multiplex pathogen panel for the diagnosis of pediatric joint infections.
J Clin Microbiol. 2025 Jul 9;63(7):e0027825. doi: 10.1128/jcm.00278-25. Epub 2025 Jun 2.
6
16S Ribosomal RNA Gene PCR and Sequencing for Pediatric Infection Diagnosis, United States, 2020-2023.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2025 May;31(13):129-136. doi: 10.3201/eid3113.241101.
7
Prospective evaluation of real-world performance and clinical impact of the Biofire FilmArray joint infection panel.
Microbiol Spectr. 2025 Apr;13(4):e0223924. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02239-24. Epub 2025 Feb 25.
8
Lyme Prosthetic Joint Infection May Be Underappreciated and Can Be Treated Without Surgery: A Case Report.
JBJS Case Connect. 2025 Feb 20;15(1). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.CC.24.00600. eCollection 2025 Jan 1.
9
Clinically applicable optimized periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis via AI based pathology.
NPJ Digit Med. 2024 Oct 26;7(1):303. doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-01301-7.

本文引用的文献

5
Targeted next generation sequencing for elbow periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Oct;101(2):115448. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115448. Epub 2021 Jun 5.
6
Microbiology of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: a database study.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 Feb;28(2):255-259. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.006. Epub 2021 Jun 12.
7
Development of antibiotic resistance in periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty.
Bone Joint J. 2021 Jun;103-B(6 Supple A):171-176. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1923.R1.
8
Emergence of Antibiotic Resistance Across Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Aug;36(8):2946-2950. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.04.007. Epub 2021 Apr 15.
9
Projected Economic Burden of Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip and Knee in the United States.
J Arthroplasty. 2021 May;36(5):1484-1489.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.005. Epub 2020 Dec 9.
10
Culture-Negative Periprosthetic Joint Infection: An Update on What to Expect.
JB JS Open Access. 2018 Jul 12;3(3):e0060. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.17.00060. eCollection 2018 Sep 25.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验