Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 30:e14448.
doi: 10.1111/tid.14448. Online ahead of print.

Application of Syndromic Panels for respiratory Tract Infections in Lung Transplantation: A Critical Review on Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Andrea Lombardi  1   2 , Giulia Renisi  1 , Arianna Liparoti  1 , Chiara Bobbio  2 , Alessandra Bandera  1   2
Affiliations
Free article

Application of Syndromic Panels for respiratory Tract Infections in Lung Transplantation: A Critical Review on Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Andrea Lombardi et al. Transpl Infect Dis. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Infections are a common complication among lung transplant recipients (LuTR), particularly in the first year post-transplant, with respiratory tract infections (RTI) being predominant. Syndromic molecular panels have been suggested to reduce morbidity and mortality by providing a diagnosis quickly. However, integrating these panels into clinical practice remains debated.

Methods: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase to identify studies on applying syndromic panels for RTI diagnosis in LuTR. Three reviewers independently screened-extracted data from relevant studies, focusing on concordance between syndromic panels and standard microbiologic tests and reporting isolates not detected by syndromic panels.

Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, including 308 patients. The BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel was the syndromic panel most frequently employed. In three studies, the syndromic panel was employed in LuTR with suspected RTI or during routine surveillance bronchoalveolar lavage; only in one case was the syndromic panel employed during the transplant procedure on samples from the donor. Agreement between syndromic panels and standard tests ranged from 0.56 to 0.98, with result turnaround times between 2.3 and 21.2 h. Sensitivity ranged from 58% to 94%, and specificity from 78% to 100%. Pathogens outside syndromic panels targets but identified by standard tests included Candida spp., unspecified gram-negative rods, and Aspergillus spp.

Conclusion: Syndromic panels offer a faster alternative to standard microbiologic tests. However, they miss numerous possible pathogens, highlighting the necessity for concurrent standard testing. Further research is needed to establish the most efficient integration of syndromic panels in LuTx infection diagnostic.

Keywords: fast microbiology; lung transplant; multi‐drug resistance; prophylaxis; syndromic panel.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. R. D. Yusen, L. B. Edwards, A. Y. Kucheryavaya, et al., “The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty‐first Adult Lung and Heart‐lung Transplant Report ‐ 2014; Focus Theme: Retransplantation,” Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 33, no. 10: 1009–1024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2014.08.004.
    1. C. Van Delden, S. Stampf, H. H. Hirsch, et al., “Burden and Timeline of Infectious Diseases in the First Year after Solid Organ Transplantation in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study,” Clinical Infectious Diseases 71 (2020): E159–E169, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz1113.
    1. H. Cassidy, M. Van Genne, E. Lizarazo‐Forero, L. Gard, and H. G. M. Niesters, “A Discussion of Syndromic Molecular Testing for Clinical Care,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 76 (2021): III58–III66, https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkab243.
    1. P. Ramanan, A. L. Bryson, M. J. Binnicker, B. S. Pritt, and R. Patel, “Syndromic Panel‐Based Testing in Clinical Microbiology,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews 31, no. 1 (2017): e00024–e00017, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00024‐17.
    1. M. M. Azar, S. Turbett, D. Gaston, et al., “A Consensus Conference to Define the Utility of Advanced Infectious Disease Diagnostics in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients,” American Journal of Transplantation 22 (2022): 3150–3169, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.17147.