THERE ARE MANY PAPERS STATING THE NEED FOR SPEED
AND I.D. STILL EXISTS FOR BACTERIA,,, AND IN MY OPINION MIT1000
CAN CERTAINLY HELP IN DOING THAT.

EVEN PAPERS STATING SOME OF THE DRAWBACKS OF OTHER SYSTEMS.
DRAWBACKS THAT THE MIT1000 MIGHT ALSO BE OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE.

HERES JUST ONE QUOTE FROM A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THE MIT1000 MUST
COME FORWARD,,, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION...

Quote:

---

Diagnostic methods in sepsis: the need of speed. FERNANDO RODRIGUES COELHO1, JOILSON OLIVEIRA MARTINS2 1

Laboratory Specialist, Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil2 PhD,

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brazi

MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS
The use of molecular biology techniques to diagnose new cases of sepsis is necessary.
This has been strongly en-couraged by the requirement of smaller samples, capable of providing reliable results

and earlier diagnosis.

These techniques can detect the presence of LPS in the blood,expression of High-Mobility Group Box (HMGB) -1

oreven identify bacterial DNA76.

These tests, however, arenot 100% accurate, but they do strongly indicate the pres-ence of sepsis.

Detection of bacterial DNA fragments byreal-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in bloodsamples, or 16S rRNA

fragments of Gram-positive andGram-negative bacteria and Candida in the 18S rRNAmight be very promising to help

early detection of sepsis,since they have shown a high degree of specificity and sen-sitivity.

The main disadvantages of these techniques are the high costs, the lack of standardization, and the need for

skilled personnel to perform them.

The ideal test should be precise, affordable, reproducible, fast, and show high specificity and sensibility,

being able to accurately evaluate the patient during different stages of the condition. Until now, none of the

tests fulfilled these conditions.

SCORING PREDISPOSITION TO SEPSIS The criteria for diagnosis of sepsis was established in 1991,and revised only

at the International Sepsis DefinitionsConference in 200137.

The risk and individual symptomsduring sepsis were defined as PIRO: predisposition to in-fection and response to

organ dysfunction37,77. This scoreis important to establish a correct and personalized treat-ment implementation

in sepsis.

The PIRO score uses sev-eral indicators such as prior co-morbidities, gender, age,culture and characterization

of the sensitivity of the mi-croorganism, SIRS, manifestations of sepsis, shock, PCR,and failure rate of organ

dysfunction37.

Another widelyused diagnostic criterion is the age acute physiology andchronic health examination (APACHE)78-79,

but it is morerestricted and sometimes fails to differentiate sepsis fromSIRS. In addition, the information

obtained from themonitoring of indicators of severity (sepsis-related organfailure assessment – SOFA) may be

more appropriate inmany cases80.

CONCLUSION Rapid diagnosis is essential in the case of sepsis. Laboratory findings are important and represent

a two-sided pro-cess.

The first side is responsible for monitoring changes in metabolic homeostasis and patient evaluation; indicating
severity of the disease and whether there is involvement of specific organs or entire systems.

The second refers to pathogen identification through a microbiological screening of the patient.Several

indicators might be used for this purpose:pro-inflammatory mediators, acute phase indicators, and pathogen

metabolites. Lactate levels, serum cytokines,presence of colony stimulating factors, and plasma nitricoxide

levels may be early indicators of SIRS, but remain restricted to research units.

An ideal test should allow for a fast and precise diagnosis, be reproducible, affordable, and have high

sensitivity and specificity. Despite several candidates such as bloodculture, serum lactate, and PCT levels, a

combination of tests is still compulsory for the diagnosis of sepsis.

In a field where speed and accuracy are needed, a gold standard test for sepsis is still searched for. Because

health is so precious, knowledge must rise to meet current needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors apologize to the many researchers whosework they have not been able to discuss in

this limited re-view. Joilson Oliveira Martins is supported by Fundaçãode Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São

Paulo (FAPESP),Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tec-nológico (CNPq, Projeto Universal), and

Pró-reitoria dePesquisa da Universidade de São Paulo (Projeto I and No-vos Docentes), Brazil.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?...&gl=us
OR
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ramb/v58n4/v58n4a24.pdf


ALSO THIS
http://www.bacterio.net/-hazard.html
http://physrev.physiology.org/content/90/3/859

---

a deleted post!