The Impact of Rapid PCR Testing for Viral Respiratory Infections on Acute Admissions From the Emergency Department and Inpatient Length of Stay.

IF 0.8 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Journal of acute medicine Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.6705/j.jacme.202209_12(3).0002
Jack Callum, Duin McDiarmid, Rusheng Chew
{"title":"The Impact of Rapid PCR Testing for Viral Respiratory Infections on Acute Admissions From the Emergency Department and Inpatient Length of Stay.","authors":"Jack Callum,&nbsp;Duin McDiarmid,&nbsp;Rusheng Chew","doi":"10.6705/j.jacme.202209_12(3).0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnosing influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) with conventional multiplex respiratory viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) takes 24-72 hours compared with under two hours for recently available rapid PCR tests. We investigated the impact of rapid diagnosis of acute respiratory viral infection on admission odds from the emergency department (ED) and acute inpatient length of stay (LOS), as well as concordance between the rapid and conventional PCR tests used at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Single-center retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to the ED with influenza-like illness. We compared the odds of admission and acute LOS in patients investigated with rapid PCR, those investigated with conventional PCR, and those investigated with both tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the odds of admission, while linear regression was used to assess LOS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant change in the odds of admission among patients who received the rapid PCR compared to conventional PCR (odds ratio: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-2.02; <i>p</i> = 0.96). There was also no significant difference in LOS of admitted patients who received rapid PCR testing (regression coefficient: -0.32, 95% CI: -1.75 to 1.12; <i>p</i> = 0.66). The rapid PCR test used at our institution yielded fully concordant results with conventional PCR testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Rapid PCR testing is as sensitive as conventional PCR testing for the diagnosis of influenza and RSV but is neither associated with a significant impact on admission nor inpatient LOS. Further research is needed to assess the impact of rapid testing on isolation room use.</p>","PeriodicalId":14846,"journal":{"name":"Journal of acute medicine","volume":"12 3","pages":"96-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9561482/pdf/jacme-12-3-02.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of acute medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6705/j.jacme.202209_12(3).0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Diagnosing influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) with conventional multiplex respiratory viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) takes 24-72 hours compared with under two hours for recently available rapid PCR tests. We investigated the impact of rapid diagnosis of acute respiratory viral infection on admission odds from the emergency department (ED) and acute inpatient length of stay (LOS), as well as concordance between the rapid and conventional PCR tests used at our institution.

Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to the ED with influenza-like illness. We compared the odds of admission and acute LOS in patients investigated with rapid PCR, those investigated with conventional PCR, and those investigated with both tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the odds of admission, while linear regression was used to assess LOS.

Results: There was no significant change in the odds of admission among patients who received the rapid PCR compared to conventional PCR (odds ratio: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-2.02; p = 0.96). There was also no significant difference in LOS of admitted patients who received rapid PCR testing (regression coefficient: -0.32, 95% CI: -1.75 to 1.12; p = 0.66). The rapid PCR test used at our institution yielded fully concordant results with conventional PCR testing.

Conclusions: Rapid PCR testing is as sensitive as conventional PCR testing for the diagnosis of influenza and RSV but is neither associated with a significant impact on admission nor inpatient LOS. Further research is needed to assess the impact of rapid testing on isolation room use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
病毒性呼吸道感染的快速PCR检测对急诊科急性入院率和住院时间的影响
背景:用传统的多重呼吸道病毒聚合酶链反应(PCR)诊断流感和呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)需要24-72小时,而最近可用的快速PCR检测不到2小时。我们调查了急性呼吸道病毒感染快速诊断对急诊科(ED)入院率和急性住院时间(LOS)的影响,以及我们机构使用的快速和常规PCR检测之间的一致性。方法:对到急诊科就诊的流感样疾病患者进行单中心回顾性队列研究。我们比较了采用快速聚合酶链反应(PCR)、常规聚合酶链反应(PCR)和两种检测方法的患者入院和急性LOS的几率。采用多变量logistic回归评估入院几率,采用线性回归评估LOS。结果:与常规PCR相比,接受快速PCR的患者入院的几率无显著变化(优势比:1.01,95%可信区间[CI]: 0.50-2.02;P = 0.96)。接受快速PCR检测的入院患者的LOS也无显著差异(回归系数:-0.32,95% CI: -1.75 ~ 1.12;P = 0.66)。本机构使用的快速PCR检测结果与传统PCR检测结果完全一致。结论:快速PCR检测在流感和RSV诊断方面与传统PCR检测一样敏感,但对入院和住院患者的LOS均无显著影响。需要进一步研究评估快速检测对隔离室使用的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of acute medicine
Journal of acute medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
International Collaboration in Taiwan Emergency Department Publications: A Social Network Analysis. Left Ventricular Perforation Following Transcutaneous Pigtail Catheter Placement Mimicking Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction: An Unusual Complication. Review of Emamectin Benzoate Poisoning. The Effect of a Separate Flow of Patients With Small Traumatic Injuries on Consult Time and Patient Satisfaction: A Retrospective Cohort Study During COVID-19 in the Emergency Department. Woman With Recurrent Syncope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1