Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2024
Evaluation of pathogen from the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel and recommendations on atypical findings.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Côrtes Luiz Gustavo Ferreira, Maldonado Mariana Menezes, Koga Paula Celia Mariko, Santiago Kelly Aline de Souza, Fernandes Gustavo Bruniera Peres, Maluf Maira Marranghello, Martino Marinês Dalla Valle
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Infectious meningoencephalitis is a potentially fatal clinical condition that causes inflammation of the central nervous system secondary to the installation of different microorganisms. The FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel allows the simultaneous detection of 14 pathogens with results in about one hour.
OBJECTIVE: This study is based on retrospectively evaluating the implementation of the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel in a hospital environment, highlighting the general results and, especially, analyzing the consistency of the test results against the clinical and laboratory conditions of the patients.
METHODS: Data were collected through the results reported by the BioFire FilmArray system software from the meningitis/encephalitis panel. The correlated laboratory tests used in our analysis, when available, included biochemical, cytological, direct and indirect microbiological tests.
RESULTS: In the analyzed period, there were 496 samples with released results. Of the total of 496 samples analyzed, 88 (17.75%) were considered positive, and 90 pathogens were detected, and in 2 of these (2.27%) there was co-detection of pathogens. Viruses were the agents most frequently found within the total number of pathogens detected. Of the 496 proven samples, 20 (4.03%) were repeated, 5 of which were repeated due to invalid results, 6 due to the detection of multiple pathogens and 9 due to disagreement between the panel results and the other laboratory tests and/or divergence of the clinical-epidemiological picture. Of these 20 repeated samples, only 4 of them (20%) maintained the original result after repeating the test, with 16 (80%) being non-reproducible. The main factor related to the disagreement of these 16 samples during retesting was the detection of bacterial agents without any relationship with other laboratory tests or with the patients' clinical condition.
CONCLUSION: In our study, simply reproducing tests with atypical results from the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel proved, in most cases, effective and sufficient for interpreting these results.
OBJECTIVE: This study is based on retrospectively evaluating the implementation of the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel in a hospital environment, highlighting the general results and, especially, analyzing the consistency of the test results against the clinical and laboratory conditions of the patients.
METHODS: Data were collected through the results reported by the BioFire FilmArray system software from the meningitis/encephalitis panel. The correlated laboratory tests used in our analysis, when available, included biochemical, cytological, direct and indirect microbiological tests.
RESULTS: In the analyzed period, there were 496 samples with released results. Of the total of 496 samples analyzed, 88 (17.75%) were considered positive, and 90 pathogens were detected, and in 2 of these (2.27%) there was co-detection of pathogens. Viruses were the agents most frequently found within the total number of pathogens detected. Of the 496 proven samples, 20 (4.03%) were repeated, 5 of which were repeated due to invalid results, 6 due to the detection of multiple pathogens and 9 due to disagreement between the panel results and the other laboratory tests and/or divergence of the clinical-epidemiological picture. Of these 20 repeated samples, only 4 of them (20%) maintained the original result after repeating the test, with 16 (80%) being non-reproducible. The main factor related to the disagreement of these 16 samples during retesting was the detection of bacterial agents without any relationship with other laboratory tests or with the patients' clinical condition.
CONCLUSION: In our study, simply reproducing tests with atypical results from the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel proved, in most cases, effective and sufficient for interpreting these results.