We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of traditional microbiological culture and 16S polymerase chain reaction analyses for identification of preoperative airway colonization for patients undergoing lung resection.
Journal of Critical Care 2018 August
PURPOSE: Preoperative airway colonization is associated with increased risk of postoperative respiratory complications following lung resection. This study compares the rates of preoperative lower respiratory tract colonization identified by traditional culture and novel 16S polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples for 49 lung resection patients underwent culture and 16S PCR analyses. Rates of positive test results were determined and relationships between test results and suspected postoperative respiratory tract infection and hospital length of stay (LOS) were investigated.
RESULTS: Preoperative BAL cultures were positive for 29 (59.2%) patients (population estimate 95%CI 45.2%-71.8%). 16S PCR tests were positive for 28 (57.1%) patients (population estimate 95%CI 43.3%-70.0%). 17 (34.7%) patients suffered suspected postoperative respiratory tract infection (population estimate 95%CI 22.9%-48.7%). Positive 16S PCR results tended to be associated with longer LOS (median 7.5 days vs 4.0 days for negative, p = 0.08) and increased risk of suspected postoperative respiratory tract infection (46.4% for positive vs 19.0% for negative, p = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: Rates of colonization identified by culture and 16S PCR analyses of BAL samples were similar. Future research should attempt to clarify associations between airway colonization identified by 16S PCR and outcomes. 16S PCR may be useful when stratifying risk of postoperative respiratory complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples for 49 lung resection patients underwent culture and 16S PCR analyses. Rates of positive test results were determined and relationships between test results and suspected postoperative respiratory tract infection and hospital length of stay (LOS) were investigated.
RESULTS: Preoperative BAL cultures were positive for 29 (59.2%) patients (population estimate 95%CI 45.2%-71.8%). 16S PCR tests were positive for 28 (57.1%) patients (population estimate 95%CI 43.3%-70.0%). 17 (34.7%) patients suffered suspected postoperative respiratory tract infection (population estimate 95%CI 22.9%-48.7%). Positive 16S PCR results tended to be associated with longer LOS (median 7.5 days vs 4.0 days for negative, p = 0.08) and increased risk of suspected postoperative respiratory tract infection (46.4% for positive vs 19.0% for negative, p = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: Rates of colonization identified by culture and 16S PCR analyses of BAL samples were similar. Future research should attempt to clarify associations between airway colonization identified by 16S PCR and outcomes. 16S PCR may be useful when stratifying risk of postoperative respiratory complications.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app