↓ Skip to main content

Increased Pathogen Identification in Vascular Graft Infections by the Combined Use of Tissue Cultures and 16S rRNA Gene Polymerase Chain Reaction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Increased Pathogen Identification in Vascular Graft Infections by the Combined Use of Tissue Cultures and 16S rRNA Gene Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelyne Ajdler-Schaeffler, Alexandra U. Scherrer, Peter M. Keller, Alexia Anagnostopoulos, Michael Hofmann, Zoran Rancic, Annelies S. Zinkernagel, Guido V. Bloemberg, Barbara K. Hasse, and the VASGRA Cohort, A. Anagnostopoulos, B. Hasse, M. Hofmann, L. Husmann, B. Ledergerber, M. Lachat, Z. Rancic, A. Scherrer, A. Weber, R. Weber, A. Zinkernagel

Abstract

Background: Vascular graft infections (VGI) are difficult to diagnose and treat, and despite redo surgery combined with antimicrobial treatment, outcomes are often poor. VGI diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical, radiological, laboratory and microbiological criteria. However, as many of the VGI patients are already under antimicrobial treatment at the time of redo surgery, microbiological identification is often difficult and bacterial cultures often remain negative rendering targeted treatment impossible. We aimed to assess the benefit of 16S rRNA gene polymerase chain reaction (broad-range PCR) for better microbiological identification in patients with VGI. Methods: We prospectively analyzed the clinical, microbiological, and treatment data of patients enrolled in the observational Vascular Graft Cohort Study (VASGRA), University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. The routine diagnostic work-up involved microbiological cultures of minced tissue samples, and the use of molecular techniques in parallel. Patient-related and microbiological data were assessed in descriptive analyses, and we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value for broad-range 16S rRNA gene PCR versus culture (considered as gold standard). Results: We investigated 60 patients (median age 66 years (Interquartile range [IQR] 59-75)) with confirmed VGI between May 2013 and July 2017. The prevalence of antimicrobial pretreatment at the time of sampling was high [91%; median days of antibiotics 7 days (IQR 1-18)]. We investigated 226 microbiological specimens. Thereof, 176 (78%) were culture-negative and 50 (22%) were culture-positive. There was a concordance of 70% (158/226) between conventional culture and broad-range PCR (sensitivity 58% (95% CI 43-72); specificity 74% (67-80%)). Among the group of 176 culture-negative specimens, 46 specimens were broad-range PCR-positive resulting in identification of overall 69 species. Among the culture and/or broad-range PCR-positive specimens (n = 96), 74 (77%) were monomicrobial and 22 (23%) polymicrobial, whereas the rate of polymicrobial samples was higher in broad-range PCR-positive specimens (93%). Conclusions: Combined cultures and broad-range 16S rRNA gene PCR from periprosthetic tissue and/or explanted vascular grafts increased the diagnostic accuracy in VGI, particularly in patients already under antimicrobial treatment at the time of redo surgery. Ideally, antimicrobial treatment should be withheld until surgical sampling in order to optimize microbiological diagnostics.Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT01821664.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 17%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Lecturer 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Unspecified 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,635,458
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,057
of 5,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,957
of 329,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#76
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.