Liquid and Dry Swabs for Culture- and PCR-Based Detection of Colonization with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus during Admission Screening.

N von Allmen, K Gorzelniak, O Liesenfeld, M Njoya, J Duncan, E M Marlowe, T Hartel, A Knaust, B Hoppe, M Walter
{"title":"Liquid and Dry Swabs for Culture- and PCR-Based Detection of Colonization with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus during Admission Screening.","authors":"N von Allmen,&nbsp;K Gorzelniak,&nbsp;O Liesenfeld,&nbsp;M Njoya,&nbsp;J Duncan,&nbsp;E M Marlowe,&nbsp;T Hartel,&nbsp;A Knaust,&nbsp;B Hoppe,&nbsp;M Walter","doi":"10.1556/1886.2019.00022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) colonization status facilitates isolation and decolonization and reduces MRSA infections. Liquid but not dry swabs allow fully automated detection methods. However, the accuracy of culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using liquid and dry swabs has not been analyzed. We compared different swab collection systems for routine nasal-throat MRSA screening in patients admitted to a tertiary care trauma center in Germany. Over 3 consecutive months, dry swabs (month 1), ESwabs (month 2), or MSwabs (month 3) were processed using Cepheid GeneXpert, Roche cobas and BD-MAX™ MRSA tests compared to chromogenic culture. Among 1680 subjects, the MRSA detection rate using PCR methods did not differ significantly between dry swabs, ESwab, and MSwab (6.0%, 6.2%, and 5.3%, respectively). Detection rates using chromogenic culture were 2.9%, 3.9%, and 1.9%, using dry, ESwab, and MSwab, respectively. Using chromogenic culture as the \"gold standard\", negative predictive values for the PCR tests ranged from 99.2-100%, and positive predictive values from 33.3-54.8%. Thus, efficient and accurate MRSA screening can be achieved using dry, as well as liquid E- or MSwab, collection systems. Specimen collection using ESwab or MSwab facilitates efficient processing for chromogenic culture in full laboratory automation while also allowing molecular testing in automated PCR systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":11929,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","volume":"9 4","pages":"131-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1886.2019.00022","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2019.00022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization status facilitates isolation and decolonization and reduces MRSA infections. Liquid but not dry swabs allow fully automated detection methods. However, the accuracy of culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using liquid and dry swabs has not been analyzed. We compared different swab collection systems for routine nasal-throat MRSA screening in patients admitted to a tertiary care trauma center in Germany. Over 3 consecutive months, dry swabs (month 1), ESwabs (month 2), or MSwabs (month 3) were processed using Cepheid GeneXpert, Roche cobas and BD-MAX™ MRSA tests compared to chromogenic culture. Among 1680 subjects, the MRSA detection rate using PCR methods did not differ significantly between dry swabs, ESwab, and MSwab (6.0%, 6.2%, and 5.3%, respectively). Detection rates using chromogenic culture were 2.9%, 3.9%, and 1.9%, using dry, ESwab, and MSwab, respectively. Using chromogenic culture as the "gold standard", negative predictive values for the PCR tests ranged from 99.2-100%, and positive predictive values from 33.3-54.8%. Thus, efficient and accurate MRSA screening can be achieved using dry, as well as liquid E- or MSwab, collection systems. Specimen collection using ESwab or MSwab facilitates efficient processing for chromogenic culture in full laboratory automation while also allowing molecular testing in automated PCR systems.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

液体和干拭子用于培养和pcr检测入院筛查期间耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌的定植。
快速检测耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)定植状态有助于分离和去定植,减少MRSA感染。液体拭子而非干拭子允许全自动检测方法。然而,使用液体和干拭子进行培养和聚合酶链反应(PCR)的准确性尚未得到分析。我们比较了不同的拭子收集系统常规鼻-喉MRSA筛查在入院的病人在德国三级护理创伤中心。连续3个月,使用Cepheid GeneXpert、Roche cobas和BD-MAX™MRSA检测处理干拭子(第1个月)、ESwabs(第2个月)或MSwabs(第3个月),并与显色培养进行比较。在1680名受试者中,PCR方法的MRSA检出率在干拭子、ESwab和MSwab之间无显著差异(分别为6.0%、6.2%和5.3%)。显色培养的检出率分别为2.9%、3.9%和1.9%,分别使用干、ESwab和MSwab。以显色培养为“金标准”,PCR检测的阴性预测值为99.2-100%,阳性预测值为33.3-54.8%。因此,有效和准确的MRSA筛选可以实现使用干燥,以及液体E-或MSwab,收集系统。使用ESwab或MSwab的标本收集有助于在完全实验室自动化中高效处理显色培养,同时也允许在自动PCR系统中进行分子测试。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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