Identification of respiratory virus in infants with congenital heart disease by comparison of different methods

Epidemiology of viral respiratory infections in children undergoing heart surgery

Background

Acute viral respiratory infections (VRI) are the most common diseases in humans and are associated with high morbidity and mortality in infants and the elderly. Children with congenital heart disease (CHD) are more susceptible to get severe forms of VRI due to their altered lung mechanics, leading to several complications, such as increased hospital stay, longer mechanical ventilation, and higher mortality. This study aimed to identify the frequency of VRI in children with CHD undergoing cardiac surgery, and to compare the major outcomes according to the presence or absence of a VRI.

Methods

This was a longitudinal, observational cohort study. Nasopharyngeal secretion samples were collected pre- and postoperatively for patients undergoing cardiac surgery, from May 2013 to May 2014. Respiratory viruses were detected using CLART Pneumovir®.

Results

Forty-eight patients were enrolled. We found a VRI preoperatively in 16 children with CHD before surgery (33.3%), and the frequency of new infections was 8.3% (4 patients). However, in this study, in univariate analyses, the two groups did not differ in any of the studied outcomes. In the multivariate regression models, adjusting for age and STAT category, the presence of a VRI did not show a significant effect on the major outcomes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, VRI was frequent in children undergoing open-heart surgery, but the presence of a VRI did not impact on major outcomes in this cohort.

•

Children with CHD are more susceptible to get severe forms of VRI, leading to poorer surgical outcomes.

•

We aimed to identify the frequency of VRI in children with CHD undergoing cardiac surgery, and its influence on outcomes.

•

We found a VRI in 16 children with CHD before surgery (33.3%), and the frequency of new infections was 8.3% (4 patients).

Comparison of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel Fast v2 Assay With Anyplex II RV16 Detection Kit and AdvanSure RV Real-Time RT-PCR Assay for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses

Background

The accurate and rapid identification of the causative viruses is important for the timely diagnosis and management of respiratory infections. Multiplex molecular diagnostic techniques have been widely adopted to detect respiratory viruses. We compared the results of a newly upgraded, multiplex, molecular bead-based respiratory viral panel (RVP) assay with the results of Anyplex II RV16 detection kit and AdvanSure RV real-time RT-PCR assay.

Methods

We tested 254 respiratory specimens and cultured viral strains using the Luminex xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay (Luminex Molecular Diagnostics, Canada) and Anyplex II RV16 detection kit and compared the results. Specimens showing discordant results between the two assays were tested with a AdvanSure RV real-time RT-PCR assay.

Results

Of the 254 respiratory specimens, there was total agreement in the results between the xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay and the other real-time PCR assay in 94.1–100% of the specimens. The agreement levels were relatively low (94.1–97.6%) for specimens of adenovirus, coronavirus NL63, and parainfluenza type 3. In comparison to the other assay, the xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay detected a higher number of parainfluenza type 3 (4 cases) and metapneumovirus (9 cases).

Conclusions

The xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay showed comparable capabilities compared with the other assays; it will be useful for identifying respiratory viral infections in patients with respiratory symptoms. Clinicians should be aware of the characteristics of the assays they use, since different assays show different detectability for each virus.

Respiratory Infections

The majority of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are community acquired and are the single most common cause of physician office visits and among the most common causes of hospitalizations. The morbidity and mortality associated with RTIs are significant and the financial and social burden high due to lost time at work and school. The scope of clinical symptoms can significantly overlap among the respiratory pathogens, and the severity of disease can vary depending on patient age, underlying disease, and immune status, thereby leading to inaccurate presumptions about disease etiology. The rapid and accurate diagnosis of the causative agent of RTIs improves patient care, reduces morbidity and mortality, promotes effective hospital bed utilization and antibiotic stewardship, and reduces length of stay. This chapter focuses on the clinical utility, advantages, and disadvantages of viral and bacterial tests cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and new promising technologies for the detection of bacterial agents of pneumonia currently in development or in US FDA clinical trials are briefly reviewed.

Clinical and economical impact of multiplex respiratory virus assays

During the last decade, a variety of molecular assays targeting respiratory viruses have been developed and commercialized. Therefore, multiplex PCR are increasingly used in everyday clinical practice. This improves our understanding of respiratory virus epidemiology and enhances our concerns about their clinical impact in specific patient populations. However, questions remain regarding cost-effectiveness of performing these diagnostic tests in routine and their real impact on patient care. This article will review available data and highlight unresolved questions about cost-effectiveness, infection control, clinical utility and public health impact of multiplex respiratory virus assays.

Comparison of Anyplex II RV16 with the xTAG respiratory viral panel and Seeplex RV15 for detection of respiratory viruses

A novel multiplex real-time PCR approach (Anyplex II RV16 [RV16]; Seegene, South Korea) was compared with a multiplex endpoint PCR kit (Seeplex RV15 ACE detection kit [RV15]; Seegene) and a liquid bead-based assay (xTAG respiratory viral panel [xTAG]; Abbott, United States). Of nasopharyngeal swabs or aspirates and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples submitted for RV15 testing, 199 retrospectively collected positive specimens and 283 prospectively collected specimens were further tested with RV16 and xTAG. A true-positive result was defined as a positive result from all three methods or RV16 and xTAG or RV15 and xTAG. For specimens with discrepant results, monoplex PCR and sequencing of the target viruses were performed. In total, 300 virus-positive specimens yielded 386 viruses. When the bocavirus results were excluded, the overall sensitivities of RV16, RV15, and xTAG were 95.2%, 93.3%, and 87.2%, respectively (95% confidence intervals, 93.0 to 97.4%, 90.8 to 95.8%, and 83.8 to 90.6%, respectively). RV16 was more sensitive than xTAG for coronavirus OC43/HKU1 (100% versus 26.1%; P < 0.0001) and adenovirus (100% versus 79.5%; P < 0.01) but was less sensitive than xTAG for rhinovirus/enterovirus (89.4% versus 97.9%; P < 0.05). RV16 demonstrated higher sensitivity than RV15 for the detection of adenovirus (100% versus 82.1%; P < 0.05). The specificities of all three methods ranged from 98.6% to 100%. Sequencing analysis of 64 rhinovirus-positive samples revealed that RV16 accurately differentiated between rhinovirus and enterovirus. RV16 most frequently missed rhinovirus C. In conclusion, the overall sensitivity of RV16 was better than that of xTAG. However, improvement of the sensitivity for rhinovirus is required.