We have located links that may give you full text access.
The use of broad-range bacterial PCR in the diagnosis of infectious diseases: a prospective cohort study.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2018 October 13
OBJECTIVES: Broad-range PCR has the potential to detect virtually any bacterial species via amplification and nucleotide sequencing of a DNA region common to all bacteria. We aimed to evaluate its usefulness and clinical relevance when applied to a wide variety of primary sterile materials.
METHODS: A prospective study including 1370 samples (75 heart valves, 151 joint tissue samples, 230 joint aspirates, 848 whole blood samples and 66 culture negative cerebrospinal fluid samples) were studied by using a commercial PCR system for detecting 16S rDNA (Molzym). The PCR results were compared with culture and were considered to provide added diagnostic value only if the PCR approach revealed new pathogens that were missed by culture.
RESULTS: The added value of PCR was evident in 173 of 555 PCR-positive samples (0.126; 0.109-0.144 [proportion from all tested samples; 95% confidence interval]), most frequently in examinations of heart valves (0.56; 0.448-0.672) and joint tissue samples (0.219; 0.153-0.284). In contrast, the lowest rate of PCR with added value was noted for blood samples, regardless the patient cohort they had been drawn from (non-oncological patients from intensive care: 0.065; 0.043-0.087, haemato-oncological children: 0.048; 0.027-0.070). Moreover, PCR missed up to 7.1% of blood culture findings (0.071; 0.048-0.095), regarded clinically relevant, which was the second highest failure rate after joint tissue samples (0.099; 0.052-0.147).
CONCLUSIONS: Broad-range PCR substantially increases detection rate of pathogens, especially from heart valves and joint samples. However, a concurrent risk of false-negative PCR results justifies the need for parallel culture.
METHODS: A prospective study including 1370 samples (75 heart valves, 151 joint tissue samples, 230 joint aspirates, 848 whole blood samples and 66 culture negative cerebrospinal fluid samples) were studied by using a commercial PCR system for detecting 16S rDNA (Molzym). The PCR results were compared with culture and were considered to provide added diagnostic value only if the PCR approach revealed new pathogens that were missed by culture.
RESULTS: The added value of PCR was evident in 173 of 555 PCR-positive samples (0.126; 0.109-0.144 [proportion from all tested samples; 95% confidence interval]), most frequently in examinations of heart valves (0.56; 0.448-0.672) and joint tissue samples (0.219; 0.153-0.284). In contrast, the lowest rate of PCR with added value was noted for blood samples, regardless the patient cohort they had been drawn from (non-oncological patients from intensive care: 0.065; 0.043-0.087, haemato-oncological children: 0.048; 0.027-0.070). Moreover, PCR missed up to 7.1% of blood culture findings (0.071; 0.048-0.095), regarded clinically relevant, which was the second highest failure rate after joint tissue samples (0.099; 0.052-0.147).
CONCLUSIONS: Broad-range PCR substantially increases detection rate of pathogens, especially from heart valves and joint samples. However, a concurrent risk of false-negative PCR results justifies the need for parallel culture.
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
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
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