Infections of AF can be categorized as SBP, culture-negative SBP (culture-negative neutrocytic ascites, CNNA), bacterascites, and sterile ascites. The first two are defined with more than 250 PMN count/µL of AF. The difference of these two entities is that AF shows a positive culture in SBP patients. On the other hand, bacterascites, and sterile ascites are characterized with PMN count/µL of AF less than 250, while the difference is lying in culture-negative results of sterile ascites (
2,
4). In our study, 41/150 (27.3%) patients with ascites were confirmed to have SBP, while others identified with CNNA. In previous studies, the frequency of SBP among patients with ascetic fluid infection (AFI) has been reported as 25% - 51% (
1,
5-
7). The different reported ratios of SBP in AFI may be due to different diagnostic criteria recruited by these studies as some authors may consider culture-positive patients as SBP, while others define SBP merely based on PMN count of ascetic fluid, as we recruited in our study (
6,
8).
From our 41 SBP patients, 15 (36.5%) showed a positive culture test. This was significantly higher than the ratio of culture-positive episodes in the non-SBP patients (2/109, 1.8%). The most common microorganism identified in the present study was E. coli (53.3%) following by Acinetobacter, Enterococcus, and streptococcus pneumonia (each with 13.3% occurrence). In the study of Abdel-Razik et al., 55.7% of SBP patients showed positive ascites cultures (
3). In other studies, a ratio of 24% - 57% of ascetic fluid culture positivity has been noted (
9,
10). Common bacteria isolated from SBP patients have been E. coli, Enterobacter, Enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus, klebsiella, pseudomonas, and Streptococcus pneumoniae (
1,
5,
9-
13). The rate and strength of immune reactivity is an important factor in determining whether a patient will grow a positive culture or not (
14). Positive culture results have shown to exert an adverse impact on survival and the antibacterial response of SBP patients (
10,
11). Although a positive culture may not be considered in the diagnosis of SBP, performing the test is important to identify casual microorganisms for an effective antimicrobial treatment. Third generation cephalosporins are considered as the first-line antibiotic therapy in SBP patients (
11). Antibiotic resistance has been a serious sequala in SBP patients and may be seen in as high as 78% of these patients (
7). Multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strains have been described in 20% and 10% of SBP patients, respectively (
12). This phenomenon further signifies the importance of identifying microbial causes of SBP.
We noticed that LDH, albumin, and protein levels in AF were significantly higher in SBP patients that non-SBP subjects. In accordance, these markers rendered AUC values of 0.814, 0.706, 0.703, respectively. At a threshold of 175, LDH resulted in 85.4% sensitivity and 74.3% specificity for SBP. PPV and NPV at this threshold were 55.6% and 93.1% respectively. Similar to this finding, LDH was also reported in higher levels in SBP patients compared to sterile cases. LDH also showed 80%, 88%, 66.7%, and 93.7% sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, respectively, which are close to our values (
8). More studies are needed to further show diagnostic validity of biochemical indices such as albumin and LDH in the diagnosis of SBP.
Clinical significant of pro-inflammatory markers in SBP has been proposed. Among blood markers, we found that ESR and CRP were significantly different between SBP and non-SBP patients. Accordingly, patients with AF infections have had higher levels of CRP (
13,
15-
18). In addition to diagnostic benefits, CRP may also be applicable in predicting prognosis and mortality (
19,
20), as well as antibiotic response rate in SBP patients (
3,
21). Pro-inflammatory markers; TNF-α, IL-6, and calprotectin have been correlated with SBP clinical course (
2). Furthermore, TNF-α, and IL-6 have been correlated with ascetic PMN count in SBP patients (
2). In line with these, significant correlations were found between CRP (r = 0.256) and ESR (r = 0.296) with PMN count of AF in our study. Regarding this, both CRP and ESR may be useful in diagnosis and management of SBP.
PMN count in AF has been traditionally known as the gold standard test for the diagnosis of SBP (
20,
22). Considering a threshold of 250 PMN per µL of AF, 27.3% of our patients were diagnosed with SBP. This diagnostic feature was significantly correlated with total cell count (r = 0.535, P < 0.0001), WBC count (r = 0.915, P < 0.0001), total protein level (r = 0.325, P < 0.0001), albumin level (r = 0.403, P < 0.0001), and LDH concentration (r = 0.296, P < 0.0001) of AF. In ROC curve analysis, WBC count in AF rendered the highest AUC (0.956, 95% CI: 0.927 - 0.985). WBC count in AF also rendered the highest level of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV (95.1%, 88.1%, 75%, and 98%). Ascetic PMN count has been noted to correlate with relatively novel diagnostic makers including calprotectin (
23), procalcitonin (
3), neutrophil Fc gamma receptor I (CD64) (
6), and lactoferrin (
24). A disadvantage of cell counts in AF is that it is time-consuming and subject-oriented accentuating the possibility of man-dependent errors. In the present study, however, we used automated cell count for blood and AF assessments obviating the aforementioned problems.
In conclusion, total cell and WBC counts of AF strongly correlated with ascetic PMN count. LDH, albumin and protein levels in AF were significantly higher in SBP patients that non-SBP subjects. Ascetic LDH, alone or in combination with WBC count of AF can be used as a potential surrogate for PMN counts in diagnosis of SBP. In addition, CRP and ESR may be useful in the diagnosis and management of SBP. For the application of nitrite test in the diagnosis of SBP, a more reliable procedure rendering higher reproducible sensitivities and specificities should be developed.