Comparison of nasal brush and nasopharyngeal aspirate techniques in obtaining specimens for detection of respiratory syncytial viral antigen by immunofluorescence

Barnes, Steve D.; Leclair, Jeanne M.; Forman, Michael; Townsend, Timothy R.; Laughlin, Gerald M.; Charache, Patricia

doi:10.1097/00006454-198909000-00006

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these, some found nasal aspirates and washes superior to nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of respiratory pathogens (Ahluwalia et al, 1987;Covalciuc et al, 1999;Frayha et al, 1989;Heikkinen et al, 2001Heikkinen et al, , 2002. In contrast, other comparative studies obtained adequate viral yields from nasopharyngeal swabs and nasal brushes, for the detection of viruses using immunofluorescent assays and cultures (Barnes et al, 1989;Frayha et al, 1989). Furthermore, Heikkinen et al (Heikkinen et al, 2001 reported comparable viral detection rates between nasal swabs and nasopharyngeal aspirates (for all the viruses tested except RSV) using viral culture and immunofluorescent assays.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of the more recent studies have used one or more sampling methods aiming at the detection of RV (nasal swabs and washes) Wright et al, 2007), RSV (nasopharyngeal aspirate, nasal brush, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid) (Barnes et al, 1989;Semple et al, 2007), Influenza virus (nasal aspirates) (Frisbie et al, 2004), Coronavirus (nasal brushes) (Gagneur et al, 2002), and Metapneumovirus (nasal swabs) (Heikkinen et al, 2008). Moreover, van den Hoogen (van den Hoogen et al, 2003) used nasal aspirates, throat swabs, sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids for the detection of Metapneumovirus by PCR, although the design of the study did not include the comparison of the sampling methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Confirmation of a viral aetiology for respiratory infections is important both for clinical diagnosis as antiviral treatments are becoming available, and for studying respiratory viruses and their interaction with the respiratory tract (Hayden, 2004). Successful detection of a respiratory virus depends on many variables, including sampling for nasal secretions, which may considerably influence the detection rates (Ahluwalia et al, 1987;Barnes et al, 1989;Covalciuc et al, 1999;Frayha et al, 1989;Heikkinen et al, 2001Heikkinen et al, , 2002Xiang et al, 2002). Several recent studies have attempted to compare different nasal sampling methods (usually no more than two), using mainly detection methods other than PCR, without reaching a clear conclusion (Ahluwalia et al, 1987;Barnes et al, 1989;Covalciuc et al, 1999;Frayha et al, 1989;Heikkinen et al, 2001Heikkinen et al, , 2002Xiang et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of four nasal sampling methods for the detection of viral pathogens by RT-PCR—A GA2LEN project

Spyridaki

Christodoulou

Beer

et al. 2009

Journal of Virological Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient discomfort between four techniques for obtaining nasal secretions. Nasal secretions from 58 patients with symptoms of a common cold, from three clinical centers (Amsterdam, Lodz, Oslo), were obtained by four different methods: swab, aspirate, brush, and wash. In each patient all four sampling procedures were performed and patient discomfort was evaluated by a visual discomfort scale (scale 1-5) after each procedure. Single pathogen RT-PCRs for Rhinovirus (RV), Influenza virus and Adenovirus, and multiplex real-time PCR for RV, Enterovirus, Influenza virus, Adenovirus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Parainfluenza virus, Coronavirus, Metapneumovirus, Bocavirus and Parechovirus were performed in all samples. A specific viral cause of respiratory tract infection was determined in 48 patients (83%). In these, the detection rate for any virus was 88% (wash), 79% (aspirate), 77% (swab) and 74% (brush). The degree of discomfort reported was 2.54 for swabs, 2.63 for washes, 2.68 for aspirates and 3.61 for brushings. Nasal washes yielded the highest rate of viral detection without excessive patient discomfort. In contrast, nasal brushes produced the lowest detection rates and demonstrated the highest level of discomfort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of four nasal sampling methods for the detection of viral pathogens by RT-PCR—A GA2LEN project

Spyridaki

Christodoulou

Beer

et al. 2009

Journal of Virological Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the patient population, nasal specimens were obtained at admission and then weekly thereafter, using a cytological brush. 8 Nasal specimens were taken monthly (`prevalence point') from nursing staff and physicians involved in direct patient care. A short anonymous questionnaire regarding gender, recent medical history and immunization status was given to all staff members.…”

Section: Specimens and Virus Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coronavirus-related nosocomial viral respiratory infections in a neonatal and paediatric intensive care unit: a prospective study

Gagneur¹,

Sizun²,

Vallet³

et al. 2002

Journal of Hospital Infection

112

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of nosocomial viral respiratory infections (NVRI) in neonates and children hospitalized in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units (PNICU) is unknown. Human coronaviruses (HCoV) have been implicated in NVRI in hospitalized preterm neonates. The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of HCoV-related NVRI in neonates and children hospitalized in a PNICU and the prevalence of viral respiratory tract infections in staff. All neonates (age< or =28 days) and children (age>28 days) hospitalized between November 1997 and April 1998 were included. Nasal samples were obtained by cytological brush at admission and weekly thereafter. Nasal samples were taken monthly from staff. Virological studies were performed, using indirect immunofluorescence, for HCoV strains 229E and OC43, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza virus types A and B, paramyxoviruses types 1, 2 and 3 and adenovirus. A total of 120 patients were enrolled (64 neonates and 56 children). Twenty-two samples from 20 patients were positive (incidence 16.7%). In neonates, seven positive samples, all for HCoV, were detected (incidence 11%). Risk factors for NVRI in neonates were: duration of hospitalization, antibiotic treatment and duration of parenteral nutrition (P<0.01). Monthly prevalence of viral infections in staff was between 0% and 10.5%, mainly with HCoV. In children, 15 samples were positive in 13 children at admission (seven RSV, five influenza and three adenovirus) but no NVRI were observed. In spite of a high rate of community-acquired infection in hospitalized children, the incidence of NVRI with common respiratory viruses appears low in neonates, HCoV being the most important pathogen of NRVI in neonates during this study period. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impact on pulmonary function.

show abstract

“…Indeed, the identification of respiratory viruses in patient samples is highly dependent on the source of the clinical specimen. Ciliated epithelial cells and cell-free virus have been collected from nasal, throat, and nasopharyngeal swabs; nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs); and nasopharyngeal washes (NPWs) for the detection of respiratory viruses (2). It has been well established that NPAs and NPWs are superior to other types of samples for the detection of respiratory viruses since a large number of epithelial cells are aspirated during the collection process (1,6,9,15,16).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Pernasal Flocked Swabs and Nasopharyngeal Aspirates for Detection of Common Respiratory Viruses in Samples from Children

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this prospective study we compared the use of pernasal flocked swab samples with the use of nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) samples for the detection of respiratory viruses from 455 children less than 5 years of age. Overall, the sensitivity and the specificity of the pernasal flocked swab samples were 98.5% and 100%, respectively. The excellent sensitivity of the flocked swab samples in combination with the rapid means by which they may be collected makes them an alternative to NPA samples, whose collection is more invasive.

show abstract

Comparison of nasal brush and nasopharyngeal aspirate techniques in obtaining specimens for detection of respiratory syncytial viral antigen by immunofluorescence

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of four nasal sampling methods for the detection of viral pathogens by RT-PCR—A GA2LEN project

Comparison of four nasal sampling methods for the detection of viral pathogens by RT-PCR—A GA2LEN project

Coronavirus-related nosocomial viral respiratory infections in a neonatal and paediatric intensive care unit: a prospective study

Comparison between Pernasal Flocked Swabs and Nasopharyngeal Aspirates for Detection of Common Respiratory Viruses in Samples from Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About