Siegman-Igra Y, Anglim A M, Shapiro D E, Adal K A, Strain B A, Farr B M
Infectious Disease Unit, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Apr;35(4):928-36. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.4.928-936.1997.
Catheter-related bloodstream infections increased in incidence during the past decade, causing significant morbidity, mortality, and excess hospital costs. Absence of inflammation at the catheter site in most cases makes clinical diagnosis uncertain. The relative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of different microbiologic tests for confirming that bloodstream infection is catheter related have remained unclear. A meta-analysis of published studies was conducted regarding the accuracy of diagnostic test methods using pooled sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The cost for each test was estimated by methods published by the College of American Pathologists. Costs of catheter replacement and antibiotic therapy for false positive results were included in the cost per accurate test result. Twenty-two studies evaluating six test methods met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Accuracy increased in ROC analysis for catheter segment cultures with increasing quantitation (P = 0.03) (i.e., quantitative > semiquantitative > qualitative) largely due to an increase in specificity. The highest Youden index (mean = 0.85) was observed with quantitative catheter segment culture, the only method with pooled sensitivity and specificity above 90%. For blood culture methods, there was no statistically significant trend toward increased accuracy. The unpaired quantitative catheter blood culture offered the lowest cost per accurate test result but was only 78% sensitive. In conclusion, quantitative culture was the most accurate method for catheter segment culture, and unpaired quantitative catheter blood culture was the single most cost-effective test, especially for long-term catheters.
在过去十年中,导管相关血流感染的发病率有所上升,导致了显著的发病率、死亡率和额外的医院成本。在大多数情况下,导管部位没有炎症,这使得临床诊断不确定。不同微生物学检测方法在确认血流感染与导管相关方面的相对准确性和成本效益仍不明确。我们对已发表的研究进行了一项荟萃分析,采用合并敏感性和特异性以及汇总受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析来评估诊断测试方法的准确性。每项检测的成本是根据美国病理学家学会公布的方法估算的。假阳性结果的导管更换和抗生素治疗成本包含在每个准确检测结果的成本中。评估六种检测方法的22项研究符合荟萃分析的纳入标准。在ROC分析中,随着定量增加(P = 0.03),导管段培养的准确性提高(即定量 > 半定量 > 定性),这主要是由于特异性增加。定量导管段培养观察到最高的约登指数(平均值 = 0.85),这是唯一一种合并敏感性和特异性高于90%的方法。对于血培养方法,准确性没有统计学上的显著提高趋势。非配对定量导管血培养每个准确检测结果的成本最低,但敏感性仅为78%。总之,定量培养是导管段培养最准确的方法,非配对定量导管血培养是最具成本效益的单一检测方法,特别是对于长期导管。