Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Hepatol. Nov 27, 2024; 16(11): 1265-1281
Published online Nov 27, 2024. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v16.i11.1265
Sensitivity of diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is higher with the automated cell count method
Juan G Acevedo-Haro, Waddah Mohamed, Prebashan Moodley, Oliver Bendall, Kris Bennett, Nigel Keelty, Sally Chan, Sam Waddy, Joanne Hosking, Wayne Thomas, Robert Tilley
Juan G Acevedo-Haro, Waddah Mohamed, Prebashan Moodley, Oliver Bendall, Kris Bennett, Nigel Keelty, Sally Chan, South West Liver Unit, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom
Juan G Acevedo-Haro, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom
Sam Waddy, Intensive Care Unit, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom
Joanne Hosking, Medical Statistics Group, Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom
Wayne Thomas, Haematology Service, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom
Robert Tilley, Microbiology Service, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Acevedo-Haro JG, Tilley R, Hosking J, and Thomas W designed the study; Mohamed W, Moodley P, Bendall O, Bennett K, Keelty N, Chan S, and Acevedo-Haro JG participated in data collection; Acevedo-Haro JG, Hosking J, and Tilley R participated in data analysis and interpretation; Acevedo-Haro JG, Tilley R, Thomas W, and Waddy S participated in the writing group.
Institutional review board statement: During the registration process, the proposal was scrutinized from an ethics and data protection perspective and concluded that the project: Was not sharing or receiving identifiable data outside of our organization.
Informed consent statement: Patients were not required to give informed consent.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Data sharing statement: Not applicable.
STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement-checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement- checklist of items.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Juan G Acevedo-Haro, PhD, Doctor, South West Liver Unit, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Derriford Road, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom. jacevedo@nhs.net
Received: June 19, 2024
Revised: September 9, 2024
Accepted: September 25, 2024
Published online: November 27, 2024
Processing time: 139 Days and 18.4 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most important complications of patients with liver cirrhosis entailing high morbidity and mortality. Making an accurate early diagnosis of this infection is key in the outcome of these patients. The current definition of SBP is based on studies performed more than 40 years ago using a manual technique to count the number of polymorphs in ascitic fluid (AF). There is a lack of data comparing the traditional cell count method with a current automated cell counter. Moreover, current international guidelines do not mention the type of cell count method to be employed and around half of the centers still rely on the traditional manual method.

AIM

To compare the accuracy of polymorph count on AF to diagnose SBP between the traditional manual cell count method and a modern automated cell counter against SBP cases fulfilling gold standard criteria: Positive AF culture and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis including two cohorts: Cross-sectional (cohort 1) and case-control (cohort 2), of patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. Both cell count methods were conducted simultaneously. Positive SBP cases had a pathogenic bacteria isolated on AF and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.

RESULTS

A total of 137 cases with 5 positive-SBP, and 85 cases with 33 positive-SBP were included in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. Positive-SBP cases had worse liver function in both cohorts. The automated method showed higher sensitivity than the manual cell count: 80% vs 52%, P = 0.02, in cohort 2. Both methods showed very good specificity (> 95%). The best cutoff using the automated cell counter was polymorph ≥ 0.2 cells × 109/L (equivalent to 200 cells/mm3) in AF as it has the higher sensitivity keeping a good specificity.

CONCLUSION

The automated cell count method should be preferred over the manual method to diagnose SBP because of its higher sensitivity. SBP definition, using the automated method, as polymorph cell count ≥ 0.2 cells × 109/L in AF would need to be considered in patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis.

Keywords: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis; Diagnosis; Cirrhosis; Bacterial infection; Automated cell count method; Manual cell count method; Ascitic fluid

Core Tip: The traditional cutoff recommended by international guidelines (250 polymorphs × 106/L in ascitic fluid) to diagnose spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) was set when automated cell counters were not available. There are no data comparing the manual and the automated cell count in patients with cirrhosis against gold standard SBP cases and employing the cell analyzers currently available. This study compares both cells count methods against SBP cases fulfilling gold standard criteria and shows that the automated method has better sensitivity: 80% vs 52%, P = 0.02 and has a good specificity (96%). It also shows that the most accurate cutoff to diagnose SBP is 0.2 polymorphs × 109/L. Guidelines should recommend the use of one of the modern automated cell counters instead of the manual method.