论文部分内容阅读
AIM: To investigate whether differences in the rapidity of a positive result for Helicobacter pylori can save res ources, by comparing two commercially available urease kits. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-five adults (130 outpatients, 55 inpatients) undergoing gastroscopy were entered prospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (if they were not on PPIs, antibiotics, H2A, bismuth or sucralfate for up to 14 d prior to the endoscopy) and Group 2 (if they were on, or had been on, any of the above medication in the previous 14 d). At endoscopy two sets of biopsies, taken in random order, were placed in the wells of the Campylobacter-like organism (CLO) test (Kimberly-Clark, Utah, USA) and the Quick test (Biohit Plc, Helsinki, Finland). Five additional gastric biopsies were taken for histology/Giemsa and immunohistochemical study. The two urease test slides were read at 2 min, 30 min, 2 h and 24 h. Sensitivity and specif icity at 24 h were determined. RESULTS: At 24 h, for all patients, there was no difference in sensitivity (100% vs 97.5%), specificity (99.3%), positive (97.5%) and negative predictive values (100% vs 99.3%) between the CLO and Quick tests, respectively. There was a positive result at 30 min in 17/41 (41.5%) CLO tests, and in 28/40 (70%) Quick tests, P = 0.05. Quick test enabled the prescription of eradication therapy before discharge in all 28/40 patients. Only 12 (30%) follow-up appointments were needed. If the CLO test had been used alone, only 17 (41.5%) prescriptions would have been possible prior to discharge and 24 (58%) follow-up appointments would be needed (P = 0.001). Of 2000 gastroscopies performed annually at our unit, a saving of 123 follow-up appointments (total: 8856 Euros or 11 808 USD) would be achieved if we switched to the Quick test. CONCLUSION: Direct comparison of locally available urease test kits is worthwhile, since the appropriate choice results in a significant saving of resources. Local costs and follow-up protocols will determine the magnitude of these savings.
AIM: To investigate whether differences in the rapidity of a positive result for Helicobacter pylori can save resources, by comparing two commercially available urease kits. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-five adults (130 outpatients, 55 inpatients) undergoing gastroscopy were entered prospectively Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (if they were not on PPIs, antibiotics, H2A, bismuth or sucralfate for up to 14 d prior to the endoscopy) and Group 2 (if they were on, or had been on, any of the past 14 d). At endoscopy two sets of biopsies, taken in random order, were placed in the wells of the Campylobacter-like organism (CLO) test (Kimberly-Clark, Utah, USA) and the Quick Five additional gastric biopsies were taken for histology / Giemsa and immunohistochemical studies. The two urease test slides were read at 2 min, 30 min, 2 h and 24 h. Sensitivity and specif icity at 24 (Biohit Plc, Helsinki, Finland) h were determined. RESULTS: At 24 h, f there was no difference in sensitivity (100% vs 97.5%), specificity (99.3%), positive (97.5%) and negative predictive values (100% vs 99.3%) between the CLO and Quick tests, respectively. There was a positive result at 30 min in 17/41 (41.5%) CLO tests, and in 28/40 (70%) Quick tests, P = 0.05. Quick test enabled the prescription of eradication therapy before discharge in all 28/40 patients If the CLO test had been used alone, only 17 (41.5%) prescriptions would have been possible prior to discharge and 24 (58%) follow-up appointments would be needed. Only 12 (30%) follow-up appointments were needed. (P = 0.001). Of 2000 gastroscopies performed annually at our unit, a saving of 123 follow-up appointments (total: 8856 Euros or 11 808 USD) would be you if switched to the Quick test. CONCLUSION: Direct comparison of locally available urease test kits is worthwhile, since the appropriate choice results in a significant saving of resources. Local costs and follow-upprotocols will determine the magnitude of these savings.