Value of PCR in surgically treated patients with staphylococcal infective endocarditis: a 4-year retrospective study
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Evaluation Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Bacteriological Techniques methods MeSH
- Molecular Diagnostic Techniques methods MeSH
- Endocarditis diagnosis microbiology surgery MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Polymerase Chain Reaction methods MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
- Staphylococcal Infections diagnosis microbiology surgery MeSH
- Staphylococcus classification genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Evaluation Study MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
The aim of the study was to establish a diagnostic value for broad-range polymerase chain reaction (br-PCR) and staphylococci-specific multiplex PCR (ssm-PCR) performed on surgical material from patients with staphylococcal infective endocarditis (IE). Data were analysed retrospectively from 60 patients with suspected staphylococcal IE and 59 controls who were surgically treated at three cardiosurgery centres over 4 years. Both PCR tests showed high agreement and could be aggregated. In patients with definite and rejected IE, the clinical sensitivity and specificity of PCR reached 89 and 95%, respectively. Tissue culture (TC) and PCR agreed with blood culture (BC) in 29% and 67% of IE cases. TC helped to determine aetiology in five BC negative cases while PCR aided in nine cases. Out of 52 patients with conclusive staphylococcal IE, 40 were diagnosed with S. aureus and 12 with coagulase-negative staphylococci. PCR was shown to be highly superior to TC in confirming preoperative diagnosis of IE. In addition to aid in culture negative patients, PCR helped to establish or refine aetiology in inconclusive cases. We suggest that simultaneous br-PCR and ssm-PCR performed on surgical material together with histopathology could significantly increase the performance of current Duke criteria.
See more in PubMed
APMIS. 2008 Mar;116(3):190-8 PubMed
Medicine (Baltimore). 2009 Jan;88(1):1-22 PubMed
Circulation. 2005 Jun 14;111(23):e394-434 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Jan;43(1):163-7 PubMed
J Infect. 2011 Jun;62(6):472-8 PubMed
Emerg Infect Dis. 2003 Dec;9(12):1543-7 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Sep;39(9):3332-8 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008 Jun;27(6):445-50 PubMed
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001 Aug;40(4):145-9 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Sep;46(9):2897-901 PubMed
Heart. 2003 Mar;89(3):263-8 PubMed
Am J Med. 2005 Mar;118(3):230-8 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 May;46(5):1780-4 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Aug 15;41(4):507-14 PubMed
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Nov;30 Suppl 1:S32-6 PubMed
Scand J Infect Dis. 2001;33(9):673-80 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Apr;30(4):633-8 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Jun;25(6):365-8 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 May;40(5):1821-3 PubMed
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 9;169(5):463-73 PubMed
Eur Heart J. 2009 Oct;30(19):2369-413 PubMed
J Infect. 2004 Apr;48(3):269-75 PubMed
J Infect. 2003 Jul;47(1):1-11 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Feb;41(2):763-6 PubMed
Medicine (Baltimore). 2007 Jul;86(4):195-202 PubMed
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2008 May;26(5):261-2 PubMed
Heart. 2009 Apr;95(7):570-6 PubMed
J Heart Valve Dis. 2009 Jul;18(4):395-400 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jan 15;46(2):232-42 PubMed
Clin Med Res. 2004 Nov;2(4):206-8 PubMed
JAMA. 2005 Jun 22;293(24):3012-21 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Jan;12(1):5-12 PubMed
