Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society · 2023
Biofire pneumonia panel in lung donors: faster detection but limited pathogens.
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.
Nguyen Anh, Chen Joy, Isaza Erin, Panchal Niel, Deiter Fred, Hoover Jonathan, Trinh Binh, Hays Steve R, Golden Jeffrey A, Singer Jonathan P, Brzezinski Marek, Greenland John R, Kukreja Jasleen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Culture of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens takes time to report. We tested whether a molecular diagnostic test could accelerate donor lung assessment and treatment.
METHODS: We compared BioFire Film Array Pneumonia Panel (BFPP) with standard of care (SOC) tests on lung allograft samples at three time points: (1) donor BAL at organ recovery, (2) donor bronchial tissue and airway swab at implantation, and (3) first recipient BAL following lung implantation. Primary outcomes were the difference in time to result (Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests) and the agreement in results between BFPP and SOC assays (Gwet's agreement coefficient).
RESULTS: We enrolled 50 subjects. In donor lung BAL specimens, BFPP detected 52 infections (14 out of 26 pathogens in the panel). Viral and bacterial BFPP results were reported 2.4 h (interquartile range, IQR 2.0-6.4) following BAL versus 4.6 h (IQR 1.9-6.0, p = 0.625) for OPO BAL viral SOC results and 66 h (IQR 47-87, p < .0001) for OPO BAL bacterial SOC results. Although there was high overall agreement of results between BAL-BFPP versus OPO BAL-SOC tests (Gwet's AC p < .001 for all), the level of agreement differed among 26 pathogens designed in BFPP and differed by types of specimens. BFPP could not detect many infections identified by SOC assays.
CONCLUSIONS: BFPP decreased time to detection of lung pathogens among donated lungs, but it cannot replace SOC tests due to the limited number of pathogens in the panel.
METHODS: We compared BioFire Film Array Pneumonia Panel (BFPP) with standard of care (SOC) tests on lung allograft samples at three time points: (1) donor BAL at organ recovery, (2) donor bronchial tissue and airway swab at implantation, and (3) first recipient BAL following lung implantation. Primary outcomes were the difference in time to result (Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests) and the agreement in results between BFPP and SOC assays (Gwet's agreement coefficient).
RESULTS: We enrolled 50 subjects. In donor lung BAL specimens, BFPP detected 52 infections (14 out of 26 pathogens in the panel). Viral and bacterial BFPP results were reported 2.4 h (interquartile range, IQR 2.0-6.4) following BAL versus 4.6 h (IQR 1.9-6.0, p = 0.625) for OPO BAL viral SOC results and 66 h (IQR 47-87, p < .0001) for OPO BAL bacterial SOC results. Although there was high overall agreement of results between BAL-BFPP versus OPO BAL-SOC tests (Gwet's AC p < .001 for all), the level of agreement differed among 26 pathogens designed in BFPP and differed by types of specimens. BFPP could not detect many infections identified by SOC assays.
CONCLUSIONS: BFPP decreased time to detection of lung pathogens among donated lungs, but it cannot replace SOC tests due to the limited number of pathogens in the panel.