Use of pus metagenomic next-generation sequencing for efficient identification of pathogens in patients with sepsis.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-11 DOI:10.1007/s12223-024-01134-7
Zhendong Chen, Tingting Ye, Yuxi He, Aijun Pan, Qing Mei
{"title":"Use of pus metagenomic next-generation sequencing for efficient identification of pathogens in patients with sepsis.","authors":"Zhendong Chen, Tingting Ye, Yuxi He, Aijun Pan, Qing Mei","doi":"10.1007/s12223-024-01134-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The positive detection rate of blood metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) was still too low to meet clinical needs, while pus from the site of primary infection may be advantageous for identification of pathogens. To assess the value of mNGS using pus in patients with sepsis, thirty-five samples were collected. Pathogen identification and mixed infection diagnosis obtained by use of mNGS or cultivation methods were compared. Fifty-three aerobic or facultative anaerobes, 59 obligate anaerobes and 7 fungi were identified by the two methods. mNGS increased the accuracy rate of diagnosing aerobic or facultative anaerobic infections from 44.4% to 94.4%; mNGS also increased the sensitivity of diagnosing obligate anaerobic infections from 52.9% to 100.0%; however, mNGS did not show any advantage in terms of fungal infections. Culture and mNGS identified 1 and 24 patients with mixed infection, respectively. For obligate anaerobes, source of microorganisms was analyzed. The odontogenic bacteria all caused empyema (n = 7) or skin and soft tissue infections (n = 5), whereas the gut-derived microbes all caused intra-abdominal infections (n = 7). We also compared the clinical characteristics of non-obligate anaerobic and obligate anaerobic infection groups. The SOFA score [9.0 (7.5, 14.3) vs. 5.0 (3.0, 8.0), P = 0.005], procalcitonin value [4.7 (1.8, 39.9) vs. 2.50 (0.7, 8.0), P = 0.035], the proportion of septic shock (66.7% vs. 35.3%, P = 0.044) and acute liver injury (66.7% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.018) in the non-obligate anaerobic infection group were significantly higher than those in the obligate anaerobic infection group. In patients with sepsis caused by purulent infection, mNGS using pus from the primary lesion may yield more valuable microbiological information.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11379781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-024-01134-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The positive detection rate of blood metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) was still too low to meet clinical needs, while pus from the site of primary infection may be advantageous for identification of pathogens. To assess the value of mNGS using pus in patients with sepsis, thirty-five samples were collected. Pathogen identification and mixed infection diagnosis obtained by use of mNGS or cultivation methods were compared. Fifty-three aerobic or facultative anaerobes, 59 obligate anaerobes and 7 fungi were identified by the two methods. mNGS increased the accuracy rate of diagnosing aerobic or facultative anaerobic infections from 44.4% to 94.4%; mNGS also increased the sensitivity of diagnosing obligate anaerobic infections from 52.9% to 100.0%; however, mNGS did not show any advantage in terms of fungal infections. Culture and mNGS identified 1 and 24 patients with mixed infection, respectively. For obligate anaerobes, source of microorganisms was analyzed. The odontogenic bacteria all caused empyema (n = 7) or skin and soft tissue infections (n = 5), whereas the gut-derived microbes all caused intra-abdominal infections (n = 7). We also compared the clinical characteristics of non-obligate anaerobic and obligate anaerobic infection groups. The SOFA score [9.0 (7.5, 14.3) vs. 5.0 (3.0, 8.0), P = 0.005], procalcitonin value [4.7 (1.8, 39.9) vs. 2.50 (0.7, 8.0), P = 0.035], the proportion of septic shock (66.7% vs. 35.3%, P = 0.044) and acute liver injury (66.7% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.018) in the non-obligate anaerobic infection group were significantly higher than those in the obligate anaerobic infection group. In patients with sepsis caused by purulent infection, mNGS using pus from the primary lesion may yield more valuable microbiological information.

Abstract Image

利用脓液元基因组新一代测序技术有效识别败血症患者体内的病原体。
血液元基因组新一代测序(mNGS)的阳性检出率仍然太低,无法满足临床需要,而来自原发感染部位的脓液可能有利于病原体的鉴定。为了评估使用败血症患者脓液进行 mNGS 的价值,研究人员收集了 35 份样本。比较了使用 mNGS 或培养方法获得的病原体鉴定和混合感染诊断结果。mNGS 将需氧或兼性厌氧菌感染诊断的准确率从 44.4% 提高到 94.4%;mNGS 还将兼性厌氧菌感染诊断的灵敏度从 52.9% 提高到 100.0%;但 mNGS 在真菌感染方面没有显示出任何优势。培养和 mNGS 分别发现了 1 名和 24 名混合感染患者。对于强制性厌氧菌,分析了微生物的来源。牙源性细菌均引起了肺水肿(7 例)或皮肤和软组织感染(5 例),而肠道源微生物均引起了腹腔内感染(7 例)。我们还比较了非厌氧菌感染组和必须厌氧菌感染组的临床特征。SOFA评分[9.0 (7.5, 14.3) vs. 5.0 (3.0, 8.0), P = 0.005]、降钙素原值[4.7 (1.8, 39.9) vs. 2.50 (0.7, 8.0), P = 0.035]、脓毒性休克比例(66.7% vs. 35.3%,P = 0.044)和急性肝损伤(66.7% vs. 23.5%,P = 0.018)的比例明显高于非厌氧菌感染组。对于化脓性感染引起的败血症患者,使用原发病灶的脓液进行 mNGS 可能会获得更有价值的微生物信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信