4.7 Article

Evaluation of the Sysmex UF1000i flow cytometer for ruling out bacterial urinary tract infection

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 411, Issue 15-16, Pages 1137-1142

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.03.027

Keywords

Urine culture; Urinary tract infections (UTI); Bacteriuria screening; Flow cytometer; Urinalysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Urine culture is one of the most frequently requested tests in microbiology, and it represents the gold standard for the diagnosis of UTIs. Considering the high prevalence of negative results and the long TAT of the culture test, the use of a rapid and reliable screening method is becoming more and more important, as it reduces the workload, the TAT of negative results, and above all, unnecessary antibiotic prescription. Methods: The Sysmex UF1000i is a new urine flow cytometry analyzer capable of quantifying urinary particles, including BACT, WBCs, and YLCs. To evaluate the analytical performance of the UF1000i as a method for ruling out UTIs, we examined 1349 urine samples and compared the UF1000i results with standard urine culture results. Results: With instrument cut-off values of 170 BACT x 10(6)/L and 150 WBCs x 10(6)/L we obtained a sensitivity of 98.8%, a specificity of 76.5%, a NPV of 99.5%, and four false negative results (1.2%), avoiding the culture of 57.1% of samples. Conclusion: The Sysmex UF1000i was capable of improving the efficiency of a routine microbiology laboratory by processing 100 samples/h and providing negative results in a few minutes, thus reducing unnecessary testing with an acceptable number of false negative results. In addition, the preliminary evaluation of B_FSC and B_FLH parameters from bacteria histograms seems to be useful for the distinction of bacterial strains detected (Gram-negatives versus Gram-positives). In fact when B_FSC was less than 30 ch, it allowed the distinction of Gram-negative bacteria in 97% of the samples. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available