4.7 Article

Empyema caused by Eikenella halliae diagnosed by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) after pulmonary surgery: A case report

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.897602

关键词

metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS); whole genome sequencing (WGS); empyema; Eikenella halliae; case report

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reported the first case of E. halliae infection in China, emphasizing the importance and accuracy of mNGS in bacterial diagnosis of empyema.
BackgroundEmpyema is one of the complications of pulmonary surgery for lung cancer, the incidence of which is not very high, but in severe cases, it can even lead to death, and it is always difficult to diagnose the cause by conventional methods. Case presentationIn this study, we report a clinical case of empyema caused by Eikenella halliae after pulmonary surgery in a 55-year-old man. He had a fever, cough, and expectoration for 3 days and was diagnosed with right hydropneumothorax and empyema, pneumonia, postoperative malignant tumor of the right lower lobe (adenocarcinoma), and hypertension. The microbiology laboratory reported Gram-negative bacteria in pleural effusion, which was preliminarily considered as Eikenella based on culture and 16S rRNA sequencing. Furthermore, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of sputum samples was performed two times and reported negative results and the presence of E. halliae, respectively. The pathogen was finally confirmed as E. halliae by whole genome sequencing, suggesting the high-resolution ability of mNGS in the clinical diagnosis of this case. ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first case report of E. halliae infection in China, indicating increased pathogenicity of Eikenella sp. in immunocompromised patients, especially after invasive operations. Our findings emphasize that mNGS allows bacterial diagnosis of empyema and can significantly improve the accuracy of the diagnosis.

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