Brittany A Allen1, Samantha J M Evans1. 1. Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial sepsis is a relatively common, life-threatening condition with a high case fatality rate. The current primary diagnostic tools for detecting bacterial infection in fluids are bacterial culture and fluid cytology. While culture is the gold standard, it can take up to several days for results to be made available to clinicians, which can delay recognition of bacterial sepsis and negatively impact patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cytology for detecting bacterial infection in body fluids. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 10 years of medical records at the Ohio State University's Veterinary Medical Center for mammalian patients with both cytology and bacterial culture of fluid samples, including body cavity fluids (abdominal and thoracic effusion), blood, joint fluid, and CSF. The overall sensitivity and specificity of cytology relative to the reference method of bacterial culture was recorded, as well as among the subcategories of fluid type. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of cytology for the diagnosis of sepsis were 42.6% and 93.0%, respectively. Individual sensitivities and specificities were also calculated for each fluid type. Thoracic fluid cytology had relatively high sensitivity and low specificity, in contrast to the other fluid types analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, cytology is poorly sensitive but highly specific for the detection of bacterial infection in fluid samples. The results from this study will allow a better comparison between the diagnostic accuracy of cytology and emerging diagnostic tests for the detection of bacterial sepsis in mammalian patients.
BACKGROUND: Bacterial sepsis is a relatively common, life-threatening condition with a high case fatality rate. The current primary diagnostic tools for detecting bacterial infection in fluids are bacterial culture and fluid cytology. While culture is the gold standard, it can take up to several days for results to be made available to clinicians, which can delay recognition of bacterial sepsis and negatively impact patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cytology for detecting bacterial infection in body fluids. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 10 years of medical records at the Ohio State University's Veterinary Medical Center for mammalian patients with both cytology and bacterial culture of fluid samples, including body cavity fluids (abdominal and thoracic effusion), blood, joint fluid, and CSF. The overall sensitivity and specificity of cytology relative to the reference method of bacterial culture was recorded, as well as among the subcategories of fluid type. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of cytology for the diagnosis of sepsis were 42.6% and 93.0%, respectively. Individual sensitivities and specificities were also calculated for each fluid type. Thoracic fluid cytology had relatively high sensitivity and low specificity, in contrast to the other fluid types analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, cytology is poorly sensitive but highly specific for the detection of bacterial infection in fluid samples. The results from this study will allow a better comparison between the diagnostic accuracy of cytology and emerging diagnostic tests for the detection of bacterial sepsis in mammalian patients.
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ann E Stapleton; Marsha E Cox; Robert K DiNello; Mark Geisberg; April Abbott; Pacita L Roberts; Thomas M Hooton Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: V F Scharf; S T Lewis; J F Wellehan; H L Wamsley; R Richardson; D A Sundstrom; D D Lewis Journal: Aust Vet J Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: D M Wong; R E Ruby; K A Dembek; B S Barr; S M Reuss; K G Magdesian; E Olsen; T Burns; N M Slovis; P A Wilkins Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 3.333