Christina Armstrong1,2, Tim Christian Kuhn3,4, Florian Leuschner5,6, Alexandra Heininger7, Matthias Dufner3, Philipp Ehlermann3, Stefan Zimmermann8, Christoph Lichtenstern9, Jasmin Soethoff10, Hugo A Katus3,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine III, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. armstrong.ccs@gmail.com. 2. Division Hospital and Environmental Hygiene, Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. armstrong.ccs@gmail.com. 3. Department of Internal Medicine III, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Internal Medicine III, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Florian.Leuschner@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 6. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site, Heidelberg, Germany. Florian.Leuschner@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 7. Division Hospital and Environmental Hygiene, Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Division Bacteriology, Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 10. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: Upon suspicion of infective endocarditis, the causative microorganism must be identified to optimize treatment. Blood cultures and culturing of removed valves are the mainstay of this diagnosis and should be complemented by growth-independent methods. We assessed the diagnostic benefit of examining removed endocarditis valves by broad-range bacterial PCR to detect causative bacteria in cases where culturing was not available, negative, or inconclusive because a skin commensal was detected, in patients from our clinical routine practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from Heidelberg University Hospital with suspicion of endocarditis, followed by valve replacement and analysis by 16S rDNA PCR, between 2015 and 2018, were evaluated. 146 patients with definite infective endocarditis, confirmed by the valve macroscopics and/or histology, were included. Valve PCRs were compared to corresponding blood and valve culture results. Overall, valve PCR yielded an additional diagnostic benefit in 34 of 146 cases (23%) and was found to be more sensitive than valve culture. In 19 of 38 patients with both negative blood and valve cultures, valve PCR was the only method rendering a pathogen. In 23 patients with positive blood cultures detecting skin commensals, 4 patients showed discordant valve PCR results, detecting a more plausible pathogen, and in 11 of 23 cases, valve PCR confirmed commensals in blood culture as true pathogens. Only the remaining 8 patients had negative valve PCRs. CONCLUSION: Valve PCR was found to be a valuable diagnostic tool in surgical endocarditis cases with negative blood cultures or positive blood cultures of unknown significance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: S-440/2017 on 28.08.2017 retrospectively registered. Subdividing of all infective endocarditis patients in this study, showing that valve PCR yields valuable information for patients with skin commensals in blood cultures, which were either confirmed by the same detection in valve PCR or refuted by the detection of a different and typical pathogen in valve PCR. Additionally, benefit was determined in patients with negative or not available blood cultures and only positive detection in valve PCR. +: Positive; -: negative; n/a: not available results.
AIMS: Upon suspicion of infective endocarditis, the causative microorganism must be identified to optimize treatment. Blood cultures and culturing of removed valves are the mainstay of this diagnosis and should be complemented by growth-independent methods. We assessed the diagnostic benefit of examining removed endocarditis valves by broad-range bacterial PCR to detect causative bacteria in cases where culturing was not available, negative, or inconclusive because a skin commensal was detected, in patients from our clinical routine practice. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients from Heidelberg University Hospital with suspicion of endocarditis, followed by valve replacement and analysis by 16S rDNA PCR, between 2015 and 2018, were evaluated. 146 patients with definite infective endocarditis, confirmed by the valve macroscopics and/or histology, were included. Valve PCRs were compared to corresponding blood and valve culture results. Overall, valve PCR yielded an additional diagnostic benefit in 34 of 146 cases (23%) and was found to be more sensitive than valve culture. In 19 of 38 patients with both negative blood and valve cultures, valve PCR was the only method rendering a pathogen. In 23 patients with positive blood cultures detecting skin commensals, 4 patients showed discordant valve PCR results, detecting a more plausible pathogen, and in 11 of 23 cases, valve PCR confirmed commensals in blood culture as true pathogens. Only the remaining 8 patients had negative valve PCRs. CONCLUSION: Valve PCR was found to be a valuable diagnostic tool in surgical endocarditis cases with negative blood cultures or positive blood cultures of unknown significance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: S-440/2017 on 28.08.2017 retrospectively registered. Subdividing of all infective endocarditispatients in this study, showing that valve PCR yields valuable information for patients with skin commensals in blood cultures, which were either confirmed by the same detection in valve PCR or refuted by the detection of a different and typical pathogen in valve PCR. Additionally, benefit was determined in patients with negative or not available blood cultures and only positive detection in valve PCR. +: Positive; -: negative; n/a: not available results.
Authors: Walter Geissdörfer; Verena Moos; Annette Moter; Christoph Loddenkemper; Andreas Jansen; René Tandler; Andreas J Morguet; Florence Fenollar; Didier Raoult; Christian Bogdan; Thomas Schneider Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Bhagaban Behera; G K Anil Vishnu; Suman Chatterjee; V S N Sitaramgupta V; Niranjana Sreekumar; Apoorva Nagabhushan; Nirmala Rajendran; B H Prathik; Hardik J Pandya Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: B Peeters; P Herijgers; K Beuselinck; J Verhaegen; W E Peetermans; M-C Herregods; S Desmet; K Lagrou Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Larry M Baddour; Walter R Wilson; Arnold S Bayer; Vance G Fowler; Imad M Tleyjeh; Michael J Rybak; Bruno Barsic; Peter B Lockhart; Michael H Gewitz; Matthew E Levison; Ann F Bolger; James M Steckelberg; Robert S Baltimore; Anne M Fink; Patrick O'Gara; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eva Havers-Borgersen; Jawad H Butt; Lauge Østergaard; Henning Bundgaard; Morten Smerup; Niels Eske Bruun; Gunnar H Gislason; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Køber; Emil L Fosbøl Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Joop J P Kouijzer; Daniëlle J Noordermeer; Wouter J van Leeuwen; Nelianne J Verkaik; Kirby R Lattwein Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2022-10-03