4.6 Review

The Role of the Respiratory Microbiome in the Pathogenesis of Aspiration Pneumonia: Implications for Diagnosis and Potential Therapeutic Choices

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12010140

关键词

lung microbiome; gram negative bacteria; PCR; mNGS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in molecular biology techniques have expanded our knowledge of the lung microbiome, challenging the belief that the lungs are sterile. Polymerase chain reaction, 16 S rRNA sequencing, and metagenomics can assist in identifying the causative agent(s) in cases of aspiration pneumonia, where conventional culture methods may fail. Additionally, these methods can help guide antibiotic therapy and address the increasing prevalence of multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacteria in aspiration pneumonia.
Although the lungs were considered to be sterile until recently, the advent of molecular biology techniques, such as polymerase chain reaction, 16 S rRNA sequencing and metagenomics has led to our expanding knowledge of the lung microbiome. These methods may be particularly useful for the identification of the causative agent(s) in cases of aspiration pneumonia, in which there is usually prior administration of antibiotics. The most common empirical treatment of aspiration pneumonia is the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics; however, this may result in negative cultures from specimens taken from the respiratory tract. Therefore, in such cases, polymerase chain reaction or metagenomic next-generation sequencing may be life-saving. Moreover, these modern molecular methods may assist with antimicrobial stewardship. Based upon factors such as age, altered mental consciousness and recent hospitalization, there is a shift towards the predominance of aerobes, especially Gram-negative bacteria, over anaerobes in aspiration pneumonia. Thus, the therapeutic choices should be expanded to cover multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacteria in selected cases of aspiration pneumonia.

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