Carroll K, Reimer L
Department of Pathology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA.
Clin Infect Dis. 1996 Sep;23(3):442-8. doi: 10.1093/clinids/23.3.442.
In the article that follows, Carroll and Reimer address a number of issues related to the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of upper respiratory tract infections. These syndromes occur with great frequency in both adults and children and have tremendous economic impact, related not only to lost productivity in the workplace but also to the frequent prescription by physicians of antibiotics, even when the etiologic agents of infection almost certainly are not bacteria. Most of these infections are diagnosed clinically, and specimens for microbiological identification are not obtained. Indeed, the difficulty in obtaining microbiological specimens that are not contaminated by resident colonizing flora often results in laboratory culture reports of dubious clinical value. As the authors note, the most standardized procedures are for the diagnosis of pharyngitis due to Streptococcus pyogenes. The preferred culture methods are reviewed as are the sensitivities, specificities, and limitations of rapid direct tests for group A streptococcal antigens. Currently, as the authors emphasize, a negative direct test mandates a conventional culture for S. pyogenes. More problematic are requests for isolation of other streptococci, Haemophilus species, corynebacteria, and gram-negative bacteria. Given limited resources, cost-containment imperatives, and the absence of clear evidence that these organisms are pharyngeal pathogens associated with important sequelae, my laboratory does not attempt to isolate these bacteria unless the ordering physician has directly consulted with me (the laboratory director). Carroll and Reimer emphasize that nasopharyngeal cultures have no place in the microbiological diagnosis of otitis media and that diagnostic tympanocentesis is the only procedure for obtaining specimens that yield reliable microbiological findings. They also point out the futility of using swabs to obtain material for the diagnosis of otitis externa, since the external auditory canal cannot be decontaminated sufficiently to obtain a meaningful culture result. Finally, the authors address the available methods for obtaining specimens to establish the etiology of sinusitis. For microbiological diagnosis, direct antral puncture has been the method of choice for many years. However, otorhinolaryngologists now obtain many specimens endoscopically. It probably is not possible to obtain specimens by this method without contamination by normal upper respiratory flora. Thus, results of cultures of endoscopic specimens are more difficult to interpret. For patients with complicated illnesses, use of the diagnostic "gold standard" of antral puncture, as well as biopsy with histopathologic correlation, should be encouraged.
在接下来的文章中,卡罗尔和赖默探讨了一些与上呼吸道感染的临床和实验室诊断相关的问题。这些综合征在成人和儿童中都极为常见,并产生了巨大的经济影响,这不仅与工作场所的生产力损失有关,还与医生频繁开具抗生素有关,即使感染的病原体几乎肯定不是细菌。这些感染大多通过临床诊断,并未获取用于微生物鉴定的标本。实际上,获取未被常驻定植菌群污染的微生物标本存在困难,这常常导致实验室培养报告的临床价值存疑。正如作者所指出的,最标准化的程序是用于诊断化脓性链球菌引起的咽炎。文中回顾了首选的培养方法以及A组链球菌抗原快速直接检测的敏感性、特异性和局限性。目前,正如作者所强调的,直接检测结果为阴性时,必须进行化脓性链球菌的传统培养。更具问题的是分离其他链球菌、嗜血杆菌属、棒状杆菌和革兰氏阴性菌的要求。鉴于资源有限、控制成本的必要性以及缺乏明确证据表明这些微生物是与重要后遗症相关的咽部病原体,除非开单医生直接与我(实验室主任)协商,否则我的实验室不会尝试分离这些细菌。卡罗尔和赖默强调,鼻咽培养在中耳炎的微生物诊断中没有意义,诊断性鼓膜穿刺是获取能产生可靠微生物学结果的标本的唯一方法。他们还指出,用拭子获取外耳道炎诊断材料是徒劳的,因为外耳道无法充分去污以获得有意义的培养结果。最后,作者讨论了用于确定鼻窦炎病因的标本获取方法。多年来,直接上颌窦穿刺一直是微生物诊断的首选方法。然而,耳鼻喉科医生现在通过内镜获取许多标本。通过这种方法获取的标本很可能无法避免被正常上呼吸道菌群污染。因此,内镜标本培养结果更难解释。对于患有复杂疾病的患者,应鼓励采用上颌窦穿刺的诊断“金标准”以及进行组织病理学相关的活检。