| Literature DB >> 35242852 |
Yi Tao1,2, Licheng Song1, Han Fu1, Wei Zhang1, Yuwei Song1, Hongxiang Liu1, Lixin Xie1, Kaifei Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To analyze the clinical value of microbiological rapid on-site evaluation (M-ROSE) in the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) and its impact on the prognosis of critically ill patients.Entities:
Keywords: Microbiological rapid on-site evaluation (M-ROSE); bronchoalveolar lavage; intensive care unit; invasive mechanical ventilation; lower respiratory tract infection
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242852 PMCID: PMC8825533 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-5465
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Microscopic BALF cell patterns and pathogens (Diff-Quik stain, ×1,000). (A) Normal cell pattern; (B) hemorrhagic cell pattern; (C) infectious cell pattern; (D) invasive aspergillus. BALF, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.
Baseline patient characteristics
| Variable | M-ROSE (n=130) | Control (n=112) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (female), n (%) | 40 (30.77) | 35 (31.25) | 0.936 |
| Age (years), M (IQR) | 66.5 (52.75, 80.0) | 74 (57.25, 82.75) | 0.065 |
| APACHE-II score, M (IQR) | 12.5 (8.0, 18.0) | 12.0 (8.0, 18.0) | 0.421 |
| SOFA score, M (IQR) | 4 (2.75, 7.0) | 4.5 (2.0, 8.0) | 0.731 |
| BMI (kg/m2), M (IQR) | 23 (20.7, 24.54) | 22.4 (19.72, 25.21) | 0.338 |
| Smoker, n (%) | 56 (43.08) | 52 (46.43) | 0.601 |
| Respiratory, n (%) | 35 (26.92) | 42 (37.5) | 0.105 |
| Cardiology, n (%) | 45 (34.62) | 40 (35.71) | 0.858 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 59 (45.38) | 43 (38.39) | 0.272 |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 32 (24.62) | 28 (25.0) | 0.945 |
| Rheumatism, n (%) | 12 (9.23) | 7 (6.25) | 0.39 |
| Hematological tumor, n (%) | 16 (12.31) | 6 (5.36) | 0.100 |
| Solid tumor, n (%) | 20 (15.38) | 24 (21.43) | 0.224 |
M-ROSE, microbiological rapid on-site evaluation; APACHE-II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; BMI, body mass index.
Inflammatory indicators and treatment changes
| Variable | M-ROSE (n=130), M (IQR) (days) | Control (n=112), M (IQR) (days) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| IL-6 initial decrease | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.047 |
| IL-6 returned to normal | 8 (2.0, 12.5) | 8 (4.5, 15.5) | 0.067 |
| CRP initial decrease | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 5.0) | <0.001 |
| CRP returned to normal | 8 (4.0, 10.75) | 9 (5.0, 15.0) | 0.064 |
| PCT initial decrease | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 3.0) | 0.001 |
| PCT returned to normal | 1 (1.0, 3.0) | 3 (1.0, 8.0) | 0.006 |
| Temperature initial decrease | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1 (1.0, 4.0) | 0.265 |
| Temperature returned to normal | 2 (1.0, 5.0) | 1 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.712 |
| Types of antibiotics used | 5 (3.0, 5.0) | 3 (2.0, 4.0) | <0.001 |
M-ROSE, microbiological rapid on-site evaluation; CRP, C-reactive protein; PCT, procalcitonin.
Primary outcomes
| Variable | M-ROSE (n=130) | Control (n=112) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitalization days, M (IQR) | 19 (13.0, 30.0) | 16.5 (10.25, 32.0) | 0.219 |
| 28-day mortality, n (%) | 28 (21.54) | 19 (16.96) | 0.370 |
| ICU mortality, n (%) | 42 (32.31) | 35 (31.25) | 0.744 |
M-ROSE, microbiological rapid on-site evaluation; ICU, intensive care unit.
Inflammatory indicator changes and prognosis between patients on invasive mechanical ventilation and not invasive mechanical ventilation in the 2 groups
| Variable | Patients on not invasive mechanical ventilation | Patients on invasive mechanical ventilation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-ROSE (n=66) | Control (n=76) | P value | M-ROSE (n=64) | Control (n=36) | P value | ||
| IL-6 initial decrease (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1 (1, 4.25) | 0.07 | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1 (1.0, 10.0) | 0.406 | |
| IL-6 returned to normal (days), M (IQR) | 7 (1.0, 11.0) | 8 (5, 15.25) | 0.035 | 9 (3.5, 13.5) | 10 (3, 18) | 0.669 | |
| CRP initial decrease (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.5 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.001 | 1 (1, 1.5) | 1 (1.0, 6.0) | 0.178 | |
| CRP returned to normal (days), M (IQR) | 6 (4.0, 11.0) | 8 (4.75, 15) | 0.099 | 8 (4, 10.5) | 9 (8.0, 18.0) | 0.196 | |
| PCT initial decrease (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 3.0) | <0.001 | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 3.0) | 0.669 | |
| PCT returned to normal (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 3 (1.0, 8.0) | <0.001 | 3 (1, 8.5) | 2 (1.0, 4.0) | 0.936 | |
| 28-day mortality rate, n (%) | 9 (13.64) | 5 (6.6) | 0.159 | 19 (29.69) | 14 (38.89) | 0.348 | |
| Mortality rate, n (%) | 11 (16.67) | 10 (13.16) | 0.557 | 31 (48.44) | 25 (69.44) | 0.042 | |
M-ROSE, microbiological rapid on-site evaluation; CRP, C-reactive protein; PCT, procalcitonin.
Inflammatory indicator changes and prognosis between patients with bacterial infection and fungal infection in the 2 groups
| Variable | Patients with bacterial infection | Patients with fungal infection | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-ROSE (n=115) | Control (n=98) | P value | M-ROSE (n=15) | Control (n=14) | P value | ||
| IL-6 initial decrease (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.083 | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1.5 (1, 4.5) | 0.345 | |
| IL-6 returned to normal (days), M (IQR) | 8 (2, 12.5) | 8 (5, 15.5) | 0.098 | 3 (1.0, 10.0) | 10 (2, 17.25) | 0.193 | |
| CRP initial decrease (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 5.0) | <0.001 | 1 (1.0, 2.0) | 1.5 (1.0, 5.0) | 0.247 | |
| CRP returned to normal (days), M (IQR) | 8 (4.0, 11.0) | 9 (5.5, 14) | 0.072 | 6 (2.5, 7.5) | 8.5 (2, 17.25) | 0.34 | |
| PCT initial decrease (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 3.0) | <0.001 | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 1 (1.0, 1.0) | 0.808 | |
| PCT returned to normal (days), M (IQR) | 1 (1.0, 3.0) | 3 (1.0, 8.0) | 0.002 | 1 (1, 6.5) | 1 (1.0, 8.0) | 0.972 | |
| 28-day mortality rate, n (%) | 25 (21.74) | 17 (17.35) | 0.422 | 3 (20) | 2 (14.29) | 0.684 | |
| Mortality rate, n (%) | 36 (31.3) | 33 (33.67) | 0.713 | 6 (40) | 2 (14.29) | 0.122 | |
M-ROSE, microbiological rapid on-site evaluation; CRP, C-reactive protein; PCT, procalcitonin.
Figure 2Venn diagrams for M-ROSE, smear, culture, and mNGS results (A,B) and box plots of the time difference between the availability of M-ROSE and laboratory test results (C-E). M-ROSE, microbiological rapid on-site evaluation; mNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing.