Use of an innovative and non-invasive device for virologic sampling of cough aerosols in patients with community and hospital acquired pneumonia: a pilot study. (1st March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patrucco, Filippo; Gavelli, Francesco; Ravanini, Paolo; Daverio, Matteo; Statti, Giulia; Castello, Luigi Mario; Andreoni, Stefano; Balbo, Piero Emilio
• Is Part Of: Journal of breath research. Volume 13:Number 2(2019:Jun.)
• Publication Date: 2019-03-01
• Subjects: pneumonia -- virus -- cough -- bronchoalveolar lavage -- rapid diagnostic test; Volatile organic compounds -- Analysis -- Periodicals; Clinical chemistry -- Periodicals; Bad breath -- Periodicals; Bad breath -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Bad breath -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 616.0756
• DOI: 10.1088/1752-7163/aaf010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1752-7155

Abstract

Abstract: Background : The aetiology of lower respiratory tract infections is challenging to investigate. Despite the wide array of diagnostic tools, invasive techniques, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), are often required to obtain adequate specimens. PneumoniaCheck TM is a new device that collects aerosol particles from cough, allowing microbiological analyses. Up to now it has been tested only for bacteria detection, but no study has investigated its usefulness for virus identification. Methods : In this pilot study we included 12 consecutive patients with pneumonia. After testing cough adequacy via a peak flow meter, a sampling with PneumoniaCheck TM was collected and a BAL was performed in each patient. Microbiological analyses for virus identification were performed on each sample and concordance between the two techniques was tested (sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values), taking BAL results as reference. Results : BAL was considered adequate in 10 patients. Among them, a viral pathogen was identified by PneumoniaCheck TM 6 times, each on different samples, whereas BAL allowed to detect the presence of a virus on 7 patients (14 positivities). Overall, the specificity for PneumoniaCheck TM to detect a virus was 100%, whereas the sensitivity was 66%. When considering only herpes viruses, PneumoniaCheck TM showed a lower sensitivity, detecting a virus in 1/4 of infected patients (25%). Conclusions : In this pilot study PneumoniaCheck TM showed a good correlation with BAL for non-herpes virologic identification in pneumonia patients, providing excellent specificity. Further studies on larger population are needed to confirm these results and define its place in the panorama of rapid diagnostic tests for lower respiratory tract infections.