Sonication of Vascular Grafts and Endografts to Diagnose Vascular Graft Infection:a Head-To-Head Comparison with Conventional Culture and Its Clinical Impact

Vascular graft and endograft infection (VGEI) is a severe complication associated with high mortality and is often challenging to diagnose. For the definitive microbiological diagnosis, sonication of vascular grafts may increase the microbiological yield of these biofilm-associated infections. The objective of this study was to determine whether sonication of explanted vascular grafts and endografts results in a higher diagnostic accuracy than conventional culture methods and aids in clinical decision-making. A prospective diagnostic study was performed comparing conventional culture with sonication culture of explanted vascular grafts in patients treated for VGEI. Explanted (endo)grafts were cut in halves and were either subjected to sonication or conventional culture. Criteria based on the Management of Aortic Graft Infection Collaboration (MAGIC) case definition of VGEI were used for definitive diagnosis. The relevance of sonication cultures was assessed by expert opinion to determine the clinical impact on decision-making. Fifty-seven vascular (endo)graft samples from 36 patients (four reoperations; 40 episodes) treated for VGEI were included; 32 episodes were diagnosed with VGEI. Both methods showed a positive culture in 81% of the cases. However, sonication culture detected clinically relevant microorganisms that went unnoticed by conventional culturing in 9 out of 57 samples (16%, 8 episodes) and provided additional relevant information regarding growth densities in another 11 samples (19%, 10 episodes). Sonication of explanted vascular grafts and endografts improves the microbiological yield and aids in the clinical decision-making for patients with a suspected VGEI compared to conventional culture alone.</p

Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Rifampin Resistance, United Kingdom

A national diagnostic service identified M. tuberculosis and rifampin resistance in primary clinical specimens faster than conventional techniques

Nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Conventional tests for tuberculous pleuritis have several limitations. A variety of new, rapid tests such as nucleic acid amplification tests – including polymerase chain reaction – have been evaluated in recent times. We conducted a systematic review to determine the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification (NAA) tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 English and Spanish articles (with 40 studies), identified via searches of six electronic databases, hand searching of selected journals, and contact with authors, experts, and test manufacturers. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy were pooled using random effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Heterogeneity in study results was formally explored using subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Of the 40 studies included, 26 used in-house ("home-brew") tests, and 14 used commercial tests. Commercial tests had a low overall sensitivity (0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43, 0.77), and high specificity (0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 0.98). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for commercial tests were 25.4 (95% CI 16.2, 40.0) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.24, 0.67), respectively. All commercial tests had consistently high specificity estimates; the sensitivity estimates, however, were heterogeneous across studies. With the in-house tests, both sensitivity and specificity estimates were significantly heterogeneous. Clinically meaningful summary estimates could not be determined for in-house tests. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that commercial NAA tests may have a potential role in confirming (ruling in) tuberculous pleuritis. However, these tests have low and variable sensitivity and, therefore, may not be useful in excluding (ruling out) the disease. NAA test results, therefore, cannot replace conventional tests; they need to be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and results of conventional tests. The accuracy of in-house nucleic acid amplification tests is poorly defined because of heterogeneity in study results. The clinical applicability of in-house NAA tests remains unclear