Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Rev. chil. enferm. respir ; 32(4): 224-232, dic. 2016. graf, tab
Article in Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-844386

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the performance of multiplex-PCR for diagnosis of respiratory viruses in parallel with direct fluorescence assay (DFA). We assessed the performance and co-infection diagnosis of molecular respiratory panel PCR (MRP-PCR) and DFA in hospitalized and outpatients. Results: 8535 samples were included, 1792 tested by MRP-PCR (46.9% positive) and 6743 by DFA (35.1% positive). MRP-PCR diagnosed co-infection in 21.3% and DFA in 1.8% of the samples. Rhinovirus was the most common virus in any age group. In 210 patients both tests were done; 100 were positive by MRP-PCR and 18 by DFA. Positive concordance value was 6.2%. 85 samples were positive only by MRP-PCR and in 42 of them only novel respiratory viruses were identified. Performance of MRP-PCR was statistically significant compared DFA for traditional respiratory viruses. Discussion: Multiplex PCR has shown better sensitivity, may expand the etiologic spectrum of respiratory infections and detect a higher number of co-infections.


Objetivo: Evaluar la contribución del panel respiratorio molecular por reacción en cadena de la polimerasa-multiplex (PRM-RPC) en paralelo a la de inmunofluorescencia directa (IFD) al diagnóstico de infecciones respiratorias. Analizamos y comparamos el rendimiento y diagnóstico de co-infección de PRM-RPC con IFD en pacientes hospitalizados y ambulatorios. Resultados: Se analizaron 8535 muestras; 1792 por PRM-RPC (46,9% positivas) y 6743 por IFD (35,1% positivas). La co-infección fue 21,3% por PRM-RCP y 1,8% por IFD. El virus más frecuente fue rinovirus a toda edad. Se analizaron 210 pacientes por ambos métodos; resultaron positivas 100 por PRM-RPC y 18 por IFD, concordancia positiva de 6,2%. 85 muestras fueron solo positivas por PRM-RPC, 42 diagnosticaron nuevos virus respiratorios. El rendimiento de PRM-RPC fue significativamente mayor que el de IFD para virus respiratorios tradicionalmente diagnosticados. Conclusiones: La RCP-multiplex tiene mejor sensibilidad, podría expandir el espectro etiológico de infecciones respiratorias y detectar un mayor número de co-infecciones comparado a IFD.


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant, Newborn , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Young Adult , Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Direct , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/microbiology , Acute Disease , Age Distribution , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Seasons
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL