4.7 Article

Bacteria and fungi in acute cholecystitis. A prospective study comparing next generation sequencing to culture

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 16-23

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.09.015

关键词

Next generation sequencing; 16S; rpoB; ITS; Acute cholecystitis; Bile; Massive parallel sequencing

资金

  1. Western Norway Regional Health Authority [912206]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Guidelines for antibiotic treatment of acute cholecystitis are based on studies using culture techniques for microbial identification. Microbial culture has well described limitations and more comprehensive data on the microbial spectrum may support adjustments of these recommendations. We used next generation sequencing to conduct a thorough microbiological characterization of bile-samples from patients with moderate and severe acute cholecystitis. Methods: We prospectively included patients with moderate and severe acute cholecystitis, undergoing percutaneous or perioperative drainage of the gall bladder. Bile samples were analyzed using both culture and deep sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA and rpoB genes and the fungal ITS2-segment. Clinical details were evaluated by medical record review. Results: Thirty-six patients with moderate and severe acute cholecystitis were included. Bile from 31 (86%) of these contained bacteria (29) and/or fungi (5) as determined by sequencing. Culture identified only 40 (38%) of the 106 microbes identified by sequencing. In none of the 15 polymicrobial samples did culture detect all present microbes. Frequently identified bacteria often missed by culture included oral streptococci, anaerobic bacteria, enterococci and Enterobacteriaceae other than Klebsiella spp. and Escherichia coli. Conclusions: Culture techniques display decreased sensitivity for the microbial diagnostics of acute cholecystitis leaving possible pathogens undetected. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

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

4.7
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