[The application value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing technology in diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection in immunocompromised patients].

To evaluate the application value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection in immunocompromised patients. A total of 78 patients with immunocompromised pulmonary infection [55 males and 23 females, aged (50.3±16.9) years] and 61 patients with non-immunocompromised pulmonary infection [42 males and 19 females, aged (63.6±15.9) years] in the Intensive Care Unit of the First Medical Center of College of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital from November 2018 to May 2022 were retrospectively selected. Patients in both groups received bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMTs) while clinically diagnosed with pulmonary infection. The diagnostic positive rate, pathogen detection rate and clinical coincidence rate of the two methods were compared. At the same time, the difference of adjustment rate of anti-infective treatment strategy based on the results of mNGS detection was compared between the two groups. The positive rates of mNGS in patients with pulmonary infection were 94.9% (74/78) and 82.0% (50/61) in the immunocompromised group and the non-immunocompromised group, respectively. The positive rates of CMTs in patients with pulmonary infection were 64.1% (50/78) and 75.4% (46/61) in the immunocompromised group and the non-immunocompromised group, respectively. The positive rates of mNGS and CMTs in patients with pulmonary infection in immunocompromised group showed a statistically significant difference (<0.001). The detection rates of mNGS in the immunocompromised group for pneumocystis jirovecii and cytomegalovirus were 41.0% (32/78) and 37.2% (29/78), respectively, and the detection rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae, chlamydia psittaci and Legionella pneumophila were 16.4% (10/61), 9.8% (6/61) and 8.2% (5/61) in the non-immunocompromised patients, respectively, which were higher than those of CMTs [1.3% (1/78), 7.7% (6/78), 4.9% (3/61), 0 and 0] (all <0.05). In the immunocompromised group, the clinical coincidence rates of mNGS and CMTs and were 89.7% (70/78) and 43.6% (34/78), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (<0.001). In the non-immunocompromised group, the clinical coincidence rates of mNGS and CMTs were 83.6% (51/61) and 62.3% (38/61), with a statistically significant difference (=0.008). In the immunocompromised group, according to the results of the etiology of mNGS, the adjustment rate of anti-infection treatment strategy was 87.2% (68/78), while in the non-immunocompromised group, the adjustment rate of anti-infective treatment strategy was 60.7% (37/61), with a statistically significant difference (<0.001). In patients with immunocompromised pulmonary infection, mNGS has more advantages than CMTs in diagnostic positive rate, diagnosis rate of mixed infection, pathogen detection rate and guidance of anti-infection treatment strategy adjustment, which is worthy of clinical promotion and application.