Comparison of Nasopharyngeal Specimens and Bronchoalveolar Lavage Specimens of Immunocompromised Adult Patients Using the Genmark DX Esensor Respiratory Viral Panel
|Kyle R Brownback1*, Dana J Hawkinson2 and Lucas R Pitts1|
|1University of Kansas Medical Center, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, USA|
|2University of Kansas Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, USA|
|Corresponding Author :||Kyle Brownback
University of Kansas Medical Center
3901 Rainbow Boulevard
Mail Stop 3007, Kansas City, KS USA
|Received March 11, 2014; Accepted March 31, 2014; Published April 09, 2014|
|Citation: Brownback KR, Hawkinson DJ and Pitts LR (2014) Comparison of Nasopharyngeal Specimens and Bronchoalveolar Lavage Specimens of Immunocompromised Adult Patients Using the Genmark DX Esensor Respiratory Viral Panel. J Infect Dis Ther 2:137. doi:10.4172/2332-0877.1000137|
|Copyright: © 2014 Brownback KR, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
|Related article at
Pubmed Scholar Google
Purpose: To determine if the multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction respiratory viral panel (RVP) provides the same results when performed on nasal wash versus bronchoalveolar lavage from the same patient within 5 days of each other.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on all adult immunocompromised patients who underwent bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with a respiratory viral panel (RVP) obtained from the BAL fluid from February 2011 to July 2012. All patients who also had a nasal wash RVP performed within 5 days of the BAL assay were included in this study.
Results: There was exact concordance between BAL and NPW specimens in 45 of 58 patients: 26 cases in which both specimens were negative and 19 cases in which the exact same viruses were present in each specimen. In 8 cases, a virus was detected in BAL fluid that was not detected in NPW fluid; in 5 cases, a virus was found in NPW fluid but not BAL.
Conclusions: There was good correlation between the two assays when performed within 5 days of each other from the 2 separate specimen sources. For optimal diagnostic detection, it may be useful to repeat the assay in both locations when clinically indicated.