Michelle H Scerbo1, Heidi B Kaplan2, Anahita Dua3, Douglas B Litwin2, Catherine G Ambrose4, Laura J Moore1, Col Clinton K Murray5, Charles E Wade1, John B Holcomb1. 1. 1 The Center for Translational Injury Research (CeTIR) , Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center , Houston, Texas. 2. 2 Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Texas Health Science Center , Houston, Texas. 3. 4 Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 4. 3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center , Houston, Texas. 5. 5 Department of Medicine, Infectious Disease Service, Brooke Army Medical Center , Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sepsis from bacteremia occurs in 250,000 cases annually in the United States, has a mortality rate as high as 60%, and is associated with a poorer prognosis than localized infection. Because of these high figures, empiric antibiotic administration for patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and suspected infection is the second most common indication for antibiotic administration in intensive care units (ICU)s. However, overuse of empiric antibiotics contributes to the development of opportunistic infections, antibiotic resistance, and the increase in multi-drug-resistant bacterial strains. The current method of diagnosing and ruling out bacteremia is via blood culture (BC) and Gram stain (GS) analysis. METHODS: Conventional and molecular methods for diagnosing bacteremia were reviewed and compared. The clinical implications, use, and current clinical trials of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods to detect bacterial pathogens in the blood stream were detailed. RESULTS: BC/GS has several disadvantages. These include: some bacteria do not grow in culture media; others do not GS appropriately; and cultures can require up to 5 d to guide or discontinue antibiotic treatment. PCR-based methods can be potentially applied to detect rapidly, accurately, and directly microbes in human blood samples. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the conventional BC/GS, particular advantages to molecular methods (specifically, PCR-based methods) include faster results, leading to possible improved antibiotic stewardship when bacteremia is not present.
BACKGROUND: Sepsis from bacteremia occurs in 250,000 cases annually in the United States, has a mortality rate as high as 60%, and is associated with a poorer prognosis than localized infection. Because of these high figures, empiric antibiotic administration for patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and suspected infection is the second most common indication for antibiotic administration in intensive care units (ICU)s. However, overuse of empiric antibiotics contributes to the development of opportunistic infections, antibiotic resistance, and the increase in multi-drug-resistant bacterial strains. The current method of diagnosing and ruling out bacteremia is via blood culture (BC) and Gram stain (GS) analysis. METHODS: Conventional and molecular methods for diagnosing bacteremia were reviewed and compared. The clinical implications, use, and current clinical trials of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods to detect bacterial pathogens in the blood stream were detailed. RESULTS: BC/GS has several disadvantages. These include: some bacteria do not grow in culture media; others do not GS appropriately; and cultures can require up to 5 d to guide or discontinue antibiotic treatment. PCR-based methods can be potentially applied to detect rapidly, accurately, and directly microbes in human blood samples. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the conventional BC/GS, particular advantages to molecular methods (specifically, PCR-based methods) include faster results, leading to possible improved antibiotic stewardship when bacteremia is not present.
Authors: Thomas C Havey; Robert A Fowler; Ruxandra Pinto; Marion Elligsen; Nick Daneman Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: H R Palmer; E L Palavecino; J W Johnson; C A Ohl; J C Williamson Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Laura J Moore; Stephen L Jones; Laura A Kreiner; Bruce McKinley; Joseph F Sucher; S Rob Todd; Krista L Turner; Alicia Valdivia; Frederick A Moore Journal: J Trauma Date: 2009-06
Authors: Faouzi Jaziri; Nicolas Parisot; Anis Abid; Jérémie Denonfoux; Céline Ribière; Cyrielle Gasc; Delphine Boucher; Jean-François Brugère; Antoine Mahul; David R C Hill; Eric Peyretaillade; Pierre Peyret Journal: Database (Oxford) Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Richard S Hotchkiss; Lyle L Moldawer; Steven M Opal; Konrad Reinhart; Isaiah R Turnbull; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Ata Mahmoodpoor; Seyedpouya Paknezhad; Kamran Shadvar; Hadi Hamishehkar; Ali Akbar Movassaghpour; Sarvin Sanaie; Ali Akbar Ghamari; Hassan Soleimanpour Journal: Anesth Pain Med Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Cristhieni Rodrigues; Rinaldo Focaccia Siciliano; Helio Caiaffa Filho; Cecília Eugenia Charbel; Luciane de Carvalho Sarahyba da Silva; Martina Baiardo Redaelli; Ana Paula de Paula Rosa Passetti; Maria Renata Gomes Franco; Flávia Rossi; Rogerio Zeigler; Daniel De Backer; Rafael Alves Franco; Juliano Pinheiro de Almeida; Stéphanie Itala Rizk; Julia Tizue Fukushima; Giovanni Landoni; David Everson Uip; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Tania Mara Varejão Strabelli Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2019-07-22
Authors: Emma Whittle; Jennifer A Yonkus; Patricio Jeraldo; Roberto Alva-Ruiz; Heidi Nelson; Michael L Kendrick; Thomas E Grys; Robin Patel; Mark J Truty; Nicholas Chia Journal: mSphere Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 4.389
Authors: Eric Gluck; H Bryant Nguyen; Kishore Yalamanchili; Margaret McCusker; Jaya Madala; Frank A Corvino; Xuelian Zhu; Robert Balk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240