Recently, the fully automated flow cytometry-based UF-5000 (Sysmex Corboration, Kobe, Japan) urine sediment analyzer was developed providing bacteria (BACT) info flags for more accurate bacterial discrimination of urinary tract infections (UTIs). This study aimed to compare the reliability of the UF-5000 BACT-info flags with manual Gram stain and urine culture as the gold standard method.
A total of 344 urine samples were analyzed on the UF-5000 and compared with manual microscopic Gram stain and urine cultures. Agreement was assessed by Cohen’s kappa (κ) analysis. The Youden index was used to determine the optimal BACT and white blood cell (WBC) cut-off points for discriminating positive and negative urine cultures.
Overall 98/344 (28.5%) samples were urine culture positive at a cut-off of ≥105 CFU/mL. “Gram-negative?” UF-5000 BACT-Info flags showed a better concordance of 25/40 (62.5%) with urine culture compared to Gram stain with 30/50 (60%). The results for UF-5000 discrimination of Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms demonstrated a substantial (κ = 0.78) and fair (κ = 0.40) agreement with urine culture. Optimal cut-off points detecting positive urine cultures were 135 BACT/µL (sensitivity [SE]: 92.1%, specificity [SP]: 85.4%, positive predictive value [PPV]: 71%, negative predictive value [NPV]: 96%) and 23 WBC/µL (SE: 73.5%, SP: 84.1%, PPV: 65%, NPV: 89%).
The UF-5000 analyzer (Sysmex) is a reliable diagnostic tool for UTI screening. The displayed BACT-Info flags allow a quick diagnostic orientation for the clinician. However, the authors suggest verifying the automated Gram categories with urine culture.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: DE wrote the manuscript and supervised this study project. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Informed consent was not required because the urine samples were submitted for routine analysis only and patient data were anonymous.
Ethical approval: The ethical approval of this study was provided by the Ethical Committee of the Medical University Graz (Graz, Austria) and carried out with the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki.
1. Magill, SS, Hellinger, W, Cohen, J, Kay, R, Bailey, C, Boland, B, et al. Prevalence of healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:283–91. https://doi.org/10.1086/664048. Search in Google Scholar
3. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2000;231:1–86. Search in Google Scholar
5. Le, Z, Li, F, Fei, C, Ye, A, Xie, X, Zhang, J. Performance of the Sysmex UF-1000i urine analyser in the rapid diagnosis of urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients. J Infect Chemother 2016;226:377–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2016.02.009. Search in Google Scholar
6. Giesen, CD, Greeno, AM, Thompson, KA, Patel, R, Jenkins, SM, Lieske, JC. Performance of flow cytometry to screen urine for bacteria and white blood cells prior to urine culture. Clin Biochem 2013;46:810–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.03.005. Search in Google Scholar
7. Olson, ML, Shanholtzer, CJ, Willard, KE, Peterson, LR. The slide centrifuge Gram stain as a urine screening method. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;96:454–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/96.4.454. Search in Google Scholar
8. Rippin, KP, Stinson, WC, Eisenstadt, J, Washington, JA. Clinical evaluation of the slide centrifuge (cytospin) Gram’s stained smear for the detection of bacteriuria and comparison with the FiltraCheck UTI and UTIscreen. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:316–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/103.3.316. Search in Google Scholar
9. Wiwanitkit, V, Udomsantisuk, N, Boonchalermvichian, C. Diagnostic value and cost utility analysis for urine Gram stain and urine microscopic examination as screening tests for urinary tract infection. Urol Res 2005;33:220–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-004-0457-z. Search in Google Scholar
10. Moshaver, B, de Boer, F, van Egmond-Kreileman, H, Kramer, E, Stegeman, C, Groeneveld, P. Fast and accurate prediction of positive and negative urine cultures by flow cytometry. BMC Infect Dis 2012;16:211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1557-4. Search in Google Scholar
11. Delanghe, JR, Kouri, TT, Huber, AR, Hannemann-Pohl, K, Guder, WG, Lun, A, et al. The role of automated urine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta 2000;301:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-8981(00)00342-9. Search in Google Scholar
12. Cho, J, Oh, KJ, Jeon, BC, Le, SG, Kim, JH. Comparison of five automated urine sediment analyzers with manual microscopy for accurate identification of urine sediment. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1744–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0211. Search in Google Scholar
13. Shang, YJ, Wang, QQ, Zhang, JR, Xu, YL, Zhang, WW, Chen, Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of flow cytometry in urinary tract infection screening. Clin Chim Acta 2013;424:90–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.05.014. Search in Google Scholar
14. Ippoliti, R, Allievi, I, Rocchetti, A. UF-5000 flow cytometer: a new technology to support microbiologists’ interpretation of suspected urinary tract infections. Microbiologyopen 2020;9:e987. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.987. Search in Google Scholar
15. De Rosa, R, Grosso, S, Lorenzi, G, Bruschetta, G, Camporese, A. Evaluation of the new Sysmex UF-5000 fluorescence flow cytometry analyser for ruling out bacterial urinary tract infection and for prediction of Gram negative bacteria in urine cultures. Clin Chim Acta 2018;484:171–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2018.05.047. Search in Google Scholar
16. Viera, AJ, Garrett, JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360–3. Search in Google Scholar
17. Kim, SY, Park, Y, Kim, H, Kim, J, Koo, SH, Kwon, GC. Rapid screening of urinary tract infection and discrimination of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria by automated flow cytometric analysis using Sysmex UF-5000. J Clin Microbiol 2018;56:e02004–17. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02004-17. Search in Google Scholar
19. Ren, C, Wu, J, Jin, M, Wang, X, Cao, H. Rapidly discriminating culture-negative urine specimens from patients with suspected urinary tract infections by UF-5000. Bioanalysis 2018;10:1833–40. https://doi.org/10.4155/bio-2018-0175. Search in Google Scholar
20. Enko, D, Stelzer, I, Böckl, M, Derler, B, Schnedl, WJ, Anderssohn, P, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of two automated urine sediment analyzers with manual phase-contrast microscopy. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:268–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0919. Search in Google Scholar
21. Oyaert, M, Speeckaert, M, Boelens, J, Delanghe, JR. Renal tubular epithelial cells add value in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract pathology. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:597–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1068. Search in Google Scholar
22. Kocer, D, Sariguzel, FM, Karakukcu, C. Cutoff values for bacteria and leukocytes for urine sediment analyzer FUS200 in culture-positive urinary-tract infections. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2014;74:414–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2014.900189. Search in Google Scholar
23. Huysal, K, Budak, YU, Karaca, AU, Aydos, M, Kahvecioğlu, S, Bulut, M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of uriSed automated urine microscopic sediment analyzer and dipstick parameters in predicting urine culture test results. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2013;23:211–7. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.025. Search in Google Scholar
24. Ilki, A, Ayas, R, Ozsoy, S, Soyletir, G. Cost-effectiveness of a new system in ruling out negative urine cultures on the day of administration. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017;36:1119–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-2898-7. Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston