采用自动细胞计数法诊断自发性细菌性腹膜炎的灵敏度更高。

IF 2.5 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Juan G Acevedo-Haro, Waddah Mohamed, Prebashan Moodley, Oliver Bendall, Kris Bennett, Nigel Keelty, Sally Chan, Sam Waddy, Joanne Hosking, Wayne Thomas, Robert Tilley
{"title":"采用自动细胞计数法诊断自发性细菌性腹膜炎的灵敏度更高。","authors":"Juan G Acevedo-Haro, Waddah Mohamed, Prebashan Moodley, Oliver Bendall, Kris Bennett, Nigel Keelty, Sally Chan, Sam Waddy, Joanne Hosking, Wayne Thomas, Robert Tilley","doi":"10.4254/wjh.v16.i11.1265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most important complications of patients with liver cirrhosis entailing high morbidity and mortality. Making an accurate early diagnosis of this infection is key in the outcome of these patients. The current definition of SBP is based on studies performed more than 40 years ago using a manual technique to count the number of polymorphs in ascitic fluid (AF). There is a lack of data comparing the traditional cell count method with a current automated cell counter. Moreover, current international guidelines do not mention the type of cell count method to be employed and around half of the centers still rely on the traditional manual method.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the accuracy of polymorph count on AF to diagnose SBP between the traditional manual cell count method and a modern automated cell counter against SBP cases fulfilling gold standard criteria: Positive AF culture and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis including two cohorts: Cross-sectional (cohort 1) and case-control (cohort 2), of patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. Both cell count methods were conducted simultaneously. Positive SBP cases had a pathogenic bacteria isolated on AF and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 137 cases with 5 positive-SBP, and 85 cases with 33 positive-SBP were included in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. Positive-SBP cases had worse liver function in both cohorts. The automated method showed higher sensitivity than the manual cell count: 80% <i>vs</i> 52%, <i>P</i> = 0.02, in cohort 2. Both methods showed very good specificity (> 95%). The best cutoff using the automated cell counter was polymorph ≥ 0.2 cells × 10<sup>9</sup>/L (equivalent to 200 cells/mm<sup>3</sup>) in AF as it has the higher sensitivity keeping a good specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The automated cell count method should be preferred over the manual method to diagnose SBP because of its higher sensitivity. SBP definition, using the automated method, as polymorph cell count ≥ 0.2 cells × 10<sup>9</sup>/L in AF would need to be considered in patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":23687,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Hepatology","volume":"16 11","pages":"1265-1281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586750/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity of diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is higher with the automated cell count method.\",\"authors\":\"Juan G Acevedo-Haro, Waddah Mohamed, Prebashan Moodley, Oliver Bendall, Kris Bennett, Nigel Keelty, Sally Chan, Sam Waddy, Joanne Hosking, Wayne Thomas, Robert Tilley\",\"doi\":\"10.4254/wjh.v16.i11.1265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most important complications of patients with liver cirrhosis entailing high morbidity and mortality. Making an accurate early diagnosis of this infection is key in the outcome of these patients. The current definition of SBP is based on studies performed more than 40 years ago using a manual technique to count the number of polymorphs in ascitic fluid (AF). There is a lack of data comparing the traditional cell count method with a current automated cell counter. Moreover, current international guidelines do not mention the type of cell count method to be employed and around half of the centers still rely on the traditional manual method.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the accuracy of polymorph count on AF to diagnose SBP between the traditional manual cell count method and a modern automated cell counter against SBP cases fulfilling gold standard criteria: Positive AF culture and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis including two cohorts: Cross-sectional (cohort 1) and case-control (cohort 2), of patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. Both cell count methods were conducted simultaneously. Positive SBP cases had a pathogenic bacteria isolated on AF and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 137 cases with 5 positive-SBP, and 85 cases with 33 positive-SBP were included in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. Positive-SBP cases had worse liver function in both cohorts. The automated method showed higher sensitivity than the manual cell count: 80% <i>vs</i> 52%, <i>P</i> = 0.02, in cohort 2. Both methods showed very good specificity (> 95%). The best cutoff using the automated cell counter was polymorph ≥ 0.2 cells × 10<sup>9</sup>/L (equivalent to 200 cells/mm<sup>3</sup>) in AF as it has the higher sensitivity keeping a good specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The automated cell count method should be preferred over the manual method to diagnose SBP because of its higher sensitivity. SBP definition, using the automated method, as polymorph cell count ≥ 0.2 cells × 10<sup>9</sup>/L in AF would need to be considered in patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Hepatology\",\"volume\":\"16 11\",\"pages\":\"1265-1281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586750/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v16.i11.1265\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v16.i11.1265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自发性细菌性腹膜炎(SBP自发性细菌性腹膜炎(SBP)是肝硬化患者最重要的并发症之一,具有很高的发病率和死亡率。对这种感染进行准确的早期诊断是这些患者预后的关键。目前对 SBP 的定义是基于 40 多年前使用人工技术计算腹水(AF)中多态性数量的研究。目前还缺乏将传统的细胞计数法与当前的自动细胞计数器进行比较的数据。此外,目前的国际指南并未提及应采用哪种细胞计数方法,约有一半的中心仍在使用传统的手工方法。目的:比较传统手工细胞计数法和现代自动细胞计数器对符合金标准的 SBP 病例进行腹水多形性细胞计数以诊断 SBP 的准确性:方法:回顾性分析包括两个队列:方法:回顾性分析包括两个队列:横断面(队列 1)和病例对照(队列 2),均为肝硬化失代偿期腹水患者。两种细胞计数方法同时进行。SBP阳性病例需在腹腔透析中分离到致病菌,并有腹膜炎的体征/症状:第一组和第二组分别有 137 例和 85 例 SBP 阳性病例,前者为 5 例,后者为 33 例。在两个组群中,SBP 阳性病例的肝功能均较差。自动方法的灵敏度高于人工细胞计数:在第二组中,自动方法的灵敏度为 80% 对 52%,P = 0.02。两种方法都显示出很好的特异性(> 95%)。在房颤中,自动细胞计数器的最佳临界值是多形性≥ 0.2 cells × 109/L(相当于 200 cells/mm3),因为它具有更高的灵敏度和良好的特异性:结论:在诊断 SBP 时,应首选自动细胞计数法,而不是手动方法,因为自动细胞计数法的灵敏度更高。对于肝硬化失代偿期患者,应考虑使用自动方法将多形性细胞计数≥ 0.2 cells × 109/L(AF)定义为 SBP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensitivity of diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is higher with the automated cell count method.

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most important complications of patients with liver cirrhosis entailing high morbidity and mortality. Making an accurate early diagnosis of this infection is key in the outcome of these patients. The current definition of SBP is based on studies performed more than 40 years ago using a manual technique to count the number of polymorphs in ascitic fluid (AF). There is a lack of data comparing the traditional cell count method with a current automated cell counter. Moreover, current international guidelines do not mention the type of cell count method to be employed and around half of the centers still rely on the traditional manual method.

Aim: To compare the accuracy of polymorph count on AF to diagnose SBP between the traditional manual cell count method and a modern automated cell counter against SBP cases fulfilling gold standard criteria: Positive AF culture and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.

Methods: Retrospective analysis including two cohorts: Cross-sectional (cohort 1) and case-control (cohort 2), of patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. Both cell count methods were conducted simultaneously. Positive SBP cases had a pathogenic bacteria isolated on AF and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.

Results: A total of 137 cases with 5 positive-SBP, and 85 cases with 33 positive-SBP were included in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. Positive-SBP cases had worse liver function in both cohorts. The automated method showed higher sensitivity than the manual cell count: 80% vs 52%, P = 0.02, in cohort 2. Both methods showed very good specificity (> 95%). The best cutoff using the automated cell counter was polymorph ≥ 0.2 cells × 109/L (equivalent to 200 cells/mm3) in AF as it has the higher sensitivity keeping a good specificity.

Conclusion: The automated cell count method should be preferred over the manual method to diagnose SBP because of its higher sensitivity. SBP definition, using the automated method, as polymorph cell count ≥ 0.2 cells × 109/L in AF would need to be considered in patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Hepatology
World Journal of Hepatology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
172
×
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