Improved pathogen identification in sepsis or septic shock by clinical metagenomic sequencing.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brenner Thorsten, Decker Sebastian O, Vainshtein Yevhen, Grumaz Silke, Manoochehri Mehdi, Feißt Manuel, Seidel-Glätzer Andrea, Pletz Mathias W, Bracht Hendrik, Berger Marc M, Fuest Kristina, Blobner Manfred, Bach Friedhelm, Moerer Onnen, Brandenburger Timo, Dimski Thomas, Suchodolski Klaudiusz, Jäkel Ulrike, Zischkau Jana, Häberle Helene, Rosenberger Peter, Schürholz Tobias, Lindau Simone, Schaller Stefan J, Putensen Christian, Dusse Fabian, Petros Sirak, Gaasch Max, Nusshag Christian, Weigand Markus A, Sohn Kai, German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (GSAIC) Trials Group
Аннотация
METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, non-interventional, multicenter study (Next GeneSiS-Trial) to compare positivity rates for NGS-based identification of causative pathogens with BCs in patients suffering from sepsis or septic shock. An independent expert panel (n=3) retrospectively evaluated the plausibility of NGS-based findings and the potential for anti-infective treatment adaptations based on NGS results.
RESULTS: The positivity rate of NGS-based diagnostics (NGS+) for 491 septic patients was 70.5% compared to positive BCs (BC+) with 19.4% within the first three days after sepsis onset. NGS+ results were evaluated as plausible in 98.6% of cases by the expert panel. Based on the experts´ recommendations, additional knowledge of NGS-based pathogen findings would have resulted in anti-infective treatment adaptations in 32.6% of all patients. Potentially inadequately treated NGS+/blood culture negative (BC-) patients showed worse outcomes.
CONCLUSION: The integration of NGS-based pathogen diagnostics in sepsis has the potential to improve patients´ outcomes as compared to a treatment strategy based on standard-of-care microbiological diagnostics alone.