4.5 Article

Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-05892-4

关键词

16S PCR; Clinical significance; Polymerase chain reaction; Antibiotic therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

16S PCR sequencing has a significant clinical impact on patient management, particularly for suspected CSF infections, patients with culture-negative samples, and those with previous antibiotic treatments.
BackgroundPCRs targeting 16S ribosomal DNA (16S PCR) followed by Sanger's sequencing can identify bacteria from normally sterile sites and complement standard analyzes, but they are expensive. We conducted a retrospective study in the Strasbourg University Hospital to assess the clinical impact of 16S PCR sequencing on patients' treatments according to different sample types.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2018, 806 16S PCR samples were processed, and 191 of those were positive.ResultsOverall, the test impacted the treatment of 62 of the 191 patients (32%). The antibiotic treatment was rationalized in 31 patients (50%) and extended in 24 patients (39%), and an invasive procedure was chosen for 7 patients (11%) due to the 16S PCR sequencing results. Positive 16S PCR sequencing results on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) had a greater impact on patients' management than positive ones on cardiac valves (p=0.044). The clinical impact of positive 16S PCR sequencing results were significantly higher when blood cultures were negative (p<0.001), and this difference appeared larger when both blood and sample cultures were negative (p<0.001). The diagnostic contribution of 16S PCR was higher in patients with previous antibiotic treatment (p<0.001).ConclusionIn all, 16S PCR analysis has a significant clinical impact on patient management, particularly for suspected CSF infections, for patients with culture-negative samples and for those with previous antibiotic treatments.

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

4.5
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