4.6 Article

Identification of respiratory microbiota markers in ventilator-associated pneumonia

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 8, 页码 1082-1092

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05660-8

关键词

Molecular; Etiology; Metataxonomics; Pathogenesis; Pneumonia; Prevention; VAP

资金

  1. Geneva University Hospitals
  2. bioMerieux (Marcy l'Etoile, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo compare bacteria recovered by standard cultures and metataxonomics, particularly with regard to ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) pathogens, and to determine if the presence of particular bacteria or microbiota in tracheal and oropharyngeal secretions during the course of intubation was associated with the development of VAP.MethodsIn this case-control study, oropharyngeal secretions and endotracheal aspirate were collected daily in mechanically ventilated patients. Culture and metataxonomics (16S rRNA gene-based taxonomic profiling of bacterial communities) were performed on serial upper respiratory samples from patients with late-onset definite VAP and their respective controls.ResultsMetataxonomic analyses showed that a low relative abundance of Bacilli at the time of intubation in the oropharyngeal secretions was strongly associated with the subsequent development of VAP. On the day of VAP, the quantity of human and bacterial DNA in both tracheal and oropharyngeal secretions was significantly higher in patients with VAP than in matched controls with similar ventilation times. Molecular techniques identified the pathogen(s) of VAP found by culture, but also many more bacteria, classically difficult to culture, such as Mycoplasma spp. and anaerobes.ConclusionsMolecular analyses of respiratory specimens identified markers associated with the development of VAP, as well as important differences in the taxa abundance between VAP and controls. Further prospective trials are needed to test the predictive value of these markers, as well as the relevance of uncultured bacteria in the pathogenesis of VAP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据