Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34882256›Full record

Observational studyWiener klinische Wochenschrift2022

Detection of bacteria via multiplex PCR in respiratory samples of critically ill COVID-19 patients with suspected HAP/VAP in the ICU.

Mario Karolyi, Erich Pawelka, Julian Hind, Sebastian Baumgartner, Emanuela Friese, Wolfgang Hoepler, Stephanie Neuhold, Sara Omid, Tamara Seitz, Marianna T Traugott and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Towards a holistic approach to pulmonary infections. Insights from the Sixth Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2024.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mario KarolyiDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria. mario.karolyi@gesundheitsverbund.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9870-2339
Erich PawelkaDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0199-0539
Julian HindMedical University of Vienna (MUW), Vienna, Austria.
Sebastian BaumgartnerDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Emanuela FrieseDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang HoeplerDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2653-3844
Stephanie NeuholdDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Sara OmidDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Tamara SeitzDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Marianna T TraugottDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0534-1966
Christoph WenischDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander ZoufalyDepartment for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Klinik Favoriten, Kundratstraße 3, 1100, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATWiener Krankenanstaltenverbund · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritically ill Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have high rates of bacterial superinfection. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction panels may be able to provide useful information about the incidence and spectrum of bacteria causing superinfections.

methodsIn this retrospective observational study we included all COVID-19 positive patients admitted to our intensive care unit with suspected hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) in whom the BioFire® Pneumonia Panel (PP) was performed from tracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for diagnostic purposes. The aim of our study was to analyze the spectrum of pathogens detected with the PP.

resultsIn this study 60 patients with a median age of 62.5 years were included. Suspected VAP was the most frequent (48/60, 80%) indication for performing the PP. Tracheal aspirate was the predominant sample type (50/60, 83.3%). The PP led to a negative, monomicrobial and polymicrobial result in 36.7%, 35% and 28.3% of the patients, respectively. The three most detected bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (13/60, 21.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (12/60, 20%) and Haemophilus influenzae (9/60, 15%). Neither atypical bacteria nor resistance genes were detected. Microbiological culture of respiratory specimens was performed in 36 (60%) patients concomitantly. The PP and microbiological culture yielded a non-concordant, partial concordant and completely concordant result in 13.9% (5/36), 30.6% (11/36) and 55.6% (20/36) of the analyzed samples, respectively.

conclusionIn critically ill COVID-19 patients with suspected HAP/VAP results of the PP and microbiological culture methods were largely consistent. In our cohort, S. aureus and K. pneumoniae were the most frequently detected organisms. A higher diagnostic yield may be achieved if both methods are combined.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsMiddle AgedMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiofireIntensive care unitMortalityPneumonia panelSuperinfection

Identifiers

PMID34882256
PMCPMC8656439
OpenAlexW4200359907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.