PCR EN EL PUNTO DE ATENCIÓN PARA LA GRIPE Y EL VIRUS RESPIRATORIO SINCITIAL: DEL LABORATORIO A URGENCIAS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17564/2316-3798.2023v9n2p232-244Publicado
Descargas
Descargas
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Interfaces Científicas - Saúde e Ambiente
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
a. Autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
b. Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a distribuir seu trabalho on-line (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal), já que isso pode gerar aumento o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre).
Resumen
RNA viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), are common causes of lower airway infections. Rapid tests (antigen-based by immunochromatographic and molecular technique - RIT and RMT, respectively) with good diagnostic accuracy directly impacts the quality of patient care and hospitalization costs. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of point of care PCR compared to rapid antigen-based tests for influenza and RSV in the emergency department.Methods: Prospective cross section study in an Emergency Room (ER) from August to September 2019, where all patients with influenza like illness went through RIT and RMT. The patients were divided in a model of four clinical scenarios to evaluate cost and isolation time in the ER.Results: 424 patients were included in the study. RIT showed sensitivity of only 40% compared with RMT (100% specificity; PPV 100%; NPV 68,7%), causing 103 patients to mistakenly leave respiratory isolation, raising biological risk in the ER. Fast results from RMT led negative patients to leave isolation early (262:10 less hours of isolation), allowing cost reduction of USD 1.921,20. Nonetheless, RMT had higher cost than RIT in all clinical scenarios with an increase of USD 12.788,90 (69,9% of cost related to tests and isolation precautions). Conclusion: RIT was a more affordable test but can’t be used to exclude disease and was associated with higher biological risk to the hospital setting. RMT had better diagnostic performance with faster results, allowing for less isolation time per patient tested.