| Literature DB >> 36017370 |
Jian Wan1, Liwei Duan2, Qitong Chen2, Lv Wang2, Jinxia Bai1, Jingyun Hu3, Xinyuan Lu1, Tao Zhang1, Wei Song1, Degang Yang4, Yi Shan2, Zhu Yan2.
Abstract
Cervical spine injury (CSI) accounts for significant mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU), whereas sepsis remains one of the major causes of death in patients with CSI. However, there is no effective method to diagnose sepsis timely. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) on the pathogen features and the prognostic prediction of CSI patients with sepsis. A total of 27 blood samples from 17 included patients were tested by mNGS. Data of mNGS were compared with the conventional culture method. The Kaplan-Meier plots were used to visualize survival curves. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent prognostic factors for survival. Results showed that mNGS detected a wide spectrum of pathogens in CSI patients with sepsis, including 129 bacterial species, 8 viral species, and 51 fungal species. mNGS indicated 85.2% positive results, while the conventional culture method only showed 11.1% positive results in the blood samples. Further analyses revealed that mNGS had no prognostic effect on the septic CSI patients in ICU, whereas positive results of blood culture were closely correlated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) (HR 77.7067, 95%CI 2.860-2641.4595, p = 0.0155). Our results suggested that the mNGS application may provide evidence for clinicians to use antibiotics when a CSI case is diagnosed with sepsis.Entities:
Keywords: ICU; a retrospective study; cervical spine injury; metagenomic next-generation sequencing; sepsis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36017370 PMCID: PMC9397569 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.948602
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 6.073
Figure 1Flowchart diagram. The recruiting process of patients in the study.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of 17 patients enrolled.
| Characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Median age (range) (years) | 60 (33–74) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 13 (76.5%) |
| Female | 4 (23.5%) |
| Etiologies | |
| Traumatic | 15 (88.24%) |
| Non-traumatic | 2 (11.76%) |
| Median APACHE II score (range) | 19 (8–23) |
| Median SOFA score (range) | 6 (3–12) |
| Median LOS (range) (day) | 19 (6–39) |
APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; SOFA, sequential [sepsis-related] organ failure assessment; LOS, length of stay.
Figure 2Metagenomic information of pathogens in the plasma. A total of 27 blood samples from 17 included septic CSI patients were tested by mNGS. (A) Relative abundance of pathogens in all the blood samples. (B–D) The frequency of each identified pathogen. Stratum-specific analyses. N = 27. CSI, cervical spine injury; mNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing.
Diagnostic performance of mNGS.
| Blood culture | Combined culture | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| mNGS | Sensitivity (%) | 66.7 | 86.4 |
| Specificity (%) | 12.5 | 20.0 | |
| PPV (%) | 8.7 | 82.6 | |
| NPV (%) | 75.0 | 25.0 | |
| mNGS | Sensitivity (%) | 33.3 | 31.8 |
| Specificity (%) | 70.8 | 80.0 | |
| PPV (%) | 12.5 | 87.5 | |
| NPV (%) | 89.5 | 21.1 | |
mNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Figure 3Comparison of mNGS and conventional culture method. The ROC of septic CSI patients under different cultural conditions. (A) Blood culture. (B) Combined culture. N = 27. mNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; CSI, cervical spine injury.
Figure 4Results of mNGS were not correlated with those of conventional culture. The comparison of the mNGS with different cultured conditions. As shown, mNGS results had little correlation with blood or combined culture results. Correlation analysis. N = 27. mNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing.
Figure 5The analysis of prognosis based on the results of mNGS_BAC and mNGS_VIR. (A) The correlation of different factors with HR. (B–G) Survival probability of different cultural conditions and mNGS data. (B) Blood culture. (C) Other culture. (D) Combine culture. (E) mNGS. (F) mNGS bacteria. (G) mNGS viruses. Cox regression analysis for (A) and survival analysis for panels B–G. N = 27. HR, hazard ratio; mNGS, metagenomic next-generation sequencing.