Clinical Infection Score Research Articles

Transcriptomic fingerprint of bacterial infection in lower extremity ulcers

Clinicians and researchers utilize subjective, clinical classification systems to stratify lower extremity ulcer infections for treatment and research. The purpose of this study was to examine whether these clinical classifications are reflected in the ulcer's transcriptome. RNA sequencing (RNA‐seq) was performed on biopsies from clinically infected lower extremity ulcers (n = 44). Resulting sequences were aligned to the host reference genome to create a transcriptome profile. Differential gene expression analysis and gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis were performed between ulcer severities as well as between sample groups identified by k‐means clustering. Lastly, a support vector classifier was trained to estimate clinical infection score or k‐means cluster based on a subset of genes. Clinical infection severity did not explain the major sources of variability among the samples and samples with the same clinical classification demonstrated high inter‐sample variability. High proportions of bacterial RNA were identified in some samples, which resulted in a strong effect on transcription and increased expression of genes associated with immune response and inflammation. K‐means clustering identified two clusters of samples, one of which contained all of the samples with high levels of bacterial RNA. A support vector classifier identified a fingerprint of 20 genes, including immune‐associated genes such as CXCL8, GADD45B, and HILPDA, which accurately identified samples with signs of infection via cross‐validation. This study identified a unique, host‐transcriptome signature in the presence of infecting bacteria, often incongruent with clinical infection‐severity classifications. This suggests that stratification of infection status based on a transcriptomic fingerprint may be useful as an objective classification method to classify infection severity, as well as a tool for studying host–pathogen interactions.

VALUE OF CLINICAL PULMONARY INFECTION SCORE IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS: BETWEEN THE USE OF CHLORHEXIDINE AND PIPER BETLE LINN MOUTHWASH

Background: One of the complications of ventilator use in patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP). Oral hygiene is one of the methods to prevent VAP.
 Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the value of clinical infection score (CPIS) in critically ill patients after given oral hygiene using chlorhexidine and Piper betle Linn mouthwash.
 Methods: This was an observational study with cross-sectional study design, which consisted of two intervention groups. Thirty respondents were selected using total sampling, with 15 respondents randomly assigned in each group. Independent t-test was used for data analysis.
 Results: Findings showed that the mean of CPIS in the Piper betle Linn group was 3.80 and the mean of CPIS in the chlorhexidine group was 4.07.
 Conclusion: CPIS in the treatment group using Piper betle Linn mouthwash was lower than the mean of CPIS in the treatment group using chlorhexidine.

Evaluation of Conventional Microbiological Procedures and Molecular Genetic Techniques for Diagnosis of Infections in Patients with Implanted Orthopedic Devices

Evaluation of Conventional Microbiological Procedures and Molecular Genetic Techniques for Diagnosis of Infections in Patients with Implanted Orthopedic Devices

Distinction between bacterial and viral infections

To commence proper treatment as rapidly as possible and to reduce unnecessary antibiotic treatments, timely knowledge of whether the infection is bacterial or viral in origin would be beneficial for the clinician. As a reliable prediction of the causative agent of bacterial infection is not possible based on clinical features, there is an ongoing need for sensitive and specific markers of bacterial infection. The most common differential diagnosis methods are reviewed here. It is also demonstrated that the measurement of the expression of complement receptors, particularly CR1 (CD35), on neutrophils can be a useful preliminary test to differentiate between bacterial and viral infections. In addition, a novel marker of local and systemic bacterial infections designated 'clinical infection score (CIS) point', which incorporates quantitative analysis of complement receptors on neutrophils and standard clinical laboratory data and displays 98% sensitivity and 97% specificity in distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections, is presented. We conclude that the diagnostic yield of measured individual variables in distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections increases upon combination.

Quantitative analysis of complement receptors, CR1 (CD35) and CR3 (CD11b), on neutrophils improves distinction between bacterial and viral infections in febrile patients: Comparison with standard clinical laboratory data

There is an ongoing need for sensitive and specific markers of bacterial infection. In this prospective study, standard clinical laboratory data (neutrophil count, serum C reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and quantitative flow cytometric analysis of neutrophil complement receptors, CR1 and CR3, were obtained from 289 hospitalized febrile patients. After microbiological confirmation or clinical diagnosis, 135 patients were found to have either bacterial ( n = 89) or viral ( n = 46) infection. The patient data was compared to 60 healthy controls. In bacterial infections, all measured variables were significantly increased, particularly the average amounts of CR1 and CR3 on neutrophils were over three-fold and two-fold higher, respectively, compared to viral infections and controls. We described a novel marker of local and systemic bacterial infections designated ‘clinical infection score (CIS) point’, which incorporates quantitative analysis of complement receptors on neutrophils and standard clinical laboratory data. CIS point varied between 0 and 8, and displayed 98% sensitivity and 97% specificity in distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections [average (S.D.); CIS points: 6.2 (1.7) vs. 0.6 (1.0); p < 0.001]. These findings suggest that the proposed CIS-based diagnostic test could potentially assist physicians in deciding whether antibiotic treatment is necessary.