A Metagenomic Comparison of Tracheal Aspirate and Mini-Bronchial Alveolar Lavage for Assessment of Respiratory Microbiota
Katrina L Kalantar,
Michael R. Wilson,
Emily D. Crawford,
Charles Y Chiu,
Eric D. Chow,
Michael A. Matthay,
Katherine S. Pollard,
Carolyn S Calfee,
Posted 24 Jul 2018
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/375360 (published DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00476.2018)
Posted 24 Jul 2018
Accurate and informative microbiologic testing is essential for guiding diagnosis and management of pneumonia in critically ill patients. Sampling of tracheal aspirate (TA) is less invasive compared to mini-bronchoalveolar lavage (mBAL) and is now recommended as a frontline diagnostic approach in mechanically ventilated patients, despite the historical belief that TA was suboptimal due to contamination from oral microbes. Advancements in metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) now permit assessment of airway microbiota without a need for culture, and as such provide an opportunity to examine differences between mBAL and TA at a resolution previously unachievable. Here, we engaged shotgun mNGS to quantitatively assess the airway microbiome in matched mBAL and TA specimens from a prospective cohort of critically ill adults. We observed moderate differences betweensampletypes across all patients(Pearson correlation of 0.72, 95% CI: 0.68 - 0.76), however we found significant compositional similarity in patients with bacterial pneumonia, whose microbial communities were characterized by a dominant pathogen (Pearson correlation of 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 - 0.95). In addition, we found that both mBAL and TA were similar in terms of microbial burden, abundance of oropharyngeal taxa, and microbial diversity. Our findings suggest that TA sampling provides a similar assessment of airway microbiota as more invasive testing by mBAL, and that this similarity is most significant in the setting of bacterial pneumonia.
- Downloaded 534 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 40,426 out of 118,916
- In microbiology: 2,467 out of 9,389
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 43,121 out of 118,916
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 47,015 out of 118,916
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!