Annalena Reitz, Sven Poppert, Melanie Rieker, Hagen Frickmann
{"title":"真实诊断条件下血培养FISH的评价。","authors":"Annalena Reitz, Sven Poppert, Melanie Rieker, Hagen Frickmann","doi":"10.1556/1886.2018.00024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study assessed a spectrum of previously published in-house fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) probes in a combined approach regarding their diagnostic performance with incubated blood culture materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Within a two-year interval, positive blood culture materials were assessed with Gram and FISH staining. Previously described and new FISH probes were combined to panels for Gram-positive cocci in grape-like clusters and in chains, as well as for Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria. Covered pathogens comprised <i>Staphylococcus</i> spp., such as <i>S. aureus, Micrococcus</i> spp., <i>Enterococcus</i> spp., including <i>E. faecium, E. faecalis</i>, and <i>E. gallinarum, Streptococcus</i> spp., like <i>S. pyogenes, S. agalactiae</i>, and <i>S. pneumoniae, Enterobacteriaceae</i>, such as <i>Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae</i> and <i>Salmonella</i> spp., <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia</i>, and <i>Bacteroides</i> spp.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 955 blood culture materials were assessed with FISH. In 21 (2.2%) instances, FISH reaction led to non-interpretable results. With few exemptions, the tested FISH probes showed acceptable test characteristics even in the routine setting, with a sensitivity ranging from 28.6% <i>(Bacteroides</i> spp.) to 100% (6 probes) and a specificity of >95% in all instances.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>If sophisticated rapid diagnostic methods like mass spectrometry from blood culture materials are not available, FISH provides an option for rapid differentiation for laboratories in resource-limited settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":11929,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","volume":"8 4","pages":"135-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1886.2018.00024","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of FISH for Blood Cultures under Diagnostic Real-Life Conditions.\",\"authors\":\"Annalena Reitz, Sven Poppert, Melanie Rieker, Hagen Frickmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/1886.2018.00024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study assessed a spectrum of previously published in-house fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) probes in a combined approach regarding their diagnostic performance with incubated blood culture materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Within a two-year interval, positive blood culture materials were assessed with Gram and FISH staining. Previously described and new FISH probes were combined to panels for Gram-positive cocci in grape-like clusters and in chains, as well as for Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria. Covered pathogens comprised <i>Staphylococcus</i> spp., such as <i>S. aureus, Micrococcus</i> spp., <i>Enterococcus</i> spp., including <i>E. faecium, E. faecalis</i>, and <i>E. gallinarum, Streptococcus</i> spp., like <i>S. pyogenes, S. agalactiae</i>, and <i>S. pneumoniae, Enterobacteriaceae</i>, such as <i>Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae</i> and <i>Salmonella</i> spp., <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia</i>, and <i>Bacteroides</i> spp.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 955 blood culture materials were assessed with FISH. In 21 (2.2%) instances, FISH reaction led to non-interpretable results. With few exemptions, the tested FISH probes showed acceptable test characteristics even in the routine setting, with a sensitivity ranging from 28.6% <i>(Bacteroides</i> spp.) to 100% (6 probes) and a specificity of >95% in all instances.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>If sophisticated rapid diagnostic methods like mass spectrometry from blood culture materials are not available, FISH provides an option for rapid differentiation for laboratories in resource-limited settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"135-141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1886.2018.00024\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2018.00024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/12/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2018.00024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of FISH for Blood Cultures under Diagnostic Real-Life Conditions.
Background: The study assessed a spectrum of previously published in-house fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) probes in a combined approach regarding their diagnostic performance with incubated blood culture materials.
Methods: Within a two-year interval, positive blood culture materials were assessed with Gram and FISH staining. Previously described and new FISH probes were combined to panels for Gram-positive cocci in grape-like clusters and in chains, as well as for Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria. Covered pathogens comprised Staphylococcus spp., such as S. aureus, Micrococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., including E. faecium, E. faecalis, and E. gallinarum, Streptococcus spp., like S. pyogenes, S. agalactiae, and S. pneumoniae, Enterobacteriaceae, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Bacteroides spp.
Results: A total of 955 blood culture materials were assessed with FISH. In 21 (2.2%) instances, FISH reaction led to non-interpretable results. With few exemptions, the tested FISH probes showed acceptable test characteristics even in the routine setting, with a sensitivity ranging from 28.6% (Bacteroides spp.) to 100% (6 probes) and a specificity of >95% in all instances.
Conclusion: If sophisticated rapid diagnostic methods like mass spectrometry from blood culture materials are not available, FISH provides an option for rapid differentiation for laboratories in resource-limited settings.