0
Abstract: Poster Presentations |

COMPARISON OF FLOCKED SWABS TO NASOPHARYNGEAL ASPIRATES FOR RECOVERY OF RESPIRATORY VIRUSES COST AND CARBON FOOTPRINT FREE TO VIEW

Gaurav Sangwan; Joan Barenfanger, MD; Joseph Henkle, MD; Julie Zimmerman; Steven Verhulst; Cheryl Drake; Jerry Lawhorn
Author and Funding Information

Southern Illinois University, Springfield, IL


Chest


Chest. 2009;136(4_MeetingAbstracts):39S-c-40S. doi:10.1378/chest.136.4_MeetingAbstracts.39S-c
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

PURPOSE:  Nasopharyngeal (NP) aspirates are considered more sensitive to detect viruses than traditional swabbing of the nasopharynx but they are more difficult to collect. Comparison of two methods of collection, one utilizing a new type of swab (flocked swab) to collect NP secretions and the other using the current standard, NP aspiration. Study included comparison of detection of viruses by immunochromatographic assays, direct fluorescent antibody tests (DFA), and R-Mix cell culture and to assess cost and carbon footprint of the two methods.

METHODS:  Dual samples were obtained from patients. The first sample (the NP swab) was taken from one nostril; the aspirate taken from the other nostril.

RESULTS:  Considering all test methods on 106 samples, 67 positive results were detected by swab; 60 were detected by aspirate (p = 0.0455). For immunoassays for RSV, 25 were detected by swab; 21 by aspirate; for immunoassays for Influenza A/B, 10 were detected by swab; 4 by aspirate (p = 0.0039 for the combined immunoassays). For DFA, 8 were detected by swab; 7 by aspirate (p = 0.3173). For culture, 24 were detected by swab; 28 by aspirate (p = 0.1025). On a 1–4 scale, average estimation of epithelial cells retrieved with swabs was 3.6; for aspirates, it was 3.0. Cost of equipment/time for the swab method was 58% lower than aspiration. Healthcare personnel preferred swab collection. Carbon footprint of swabs was < 5% than that of aspirates.

CONCLUSION:  Flocked swabs a) are statistically significantly superior for overall viral detection, b) recovered more epithelial cells, c) are preferred by healthcare workers, d) cost 58% less and e) are significantly better environmentally than NP aspiration.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:  Samples collected by NP flocked swabs had a statistically higher rate of positive results for respiratory viruses for the viral tests performed than did samples collected by NP aspiration.Flocked swabs may be a better alternative than NP aspiration.

DISCLOSURE:  Gaurav Sangwan, Other This study was funded in part by Copan Diagnostics and Diagnostic Hybrids, Inc; No Product/Research Disclosure Information

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

12:45 PM - 2:00 PM


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543