Diagnostic accuracy of the BioFire FilmArray blood culture identification panel when used in critically ill patients with sepsis

2021 ◽  
Vol 189 ◽  
pp. 106303
Author(s):  
Roxanne Rule ◽  
Fathima Paruk ◽  
Piet Becker ◽  
Matthew Neuhoff ◽  
Julian Chausse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Culture Identification

scholarly journals Clinical utility of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification panel in the adjustment of empiric antimicrobial therapy in the critically ill septic patient

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254389
Author(s):  
Roxanne Rule ◽  
Fathima Paruk ◽  
Piet Becker ◽  
Matthew Neuhoff ◽  
Julian Chausse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Culture Methods ◽  
Conventional Culture ◽  
Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Culture Identification

Sepsis and septic shock are key contributors to mortality in critically ill patients and thus prompt recognition and management thereof is central to achieving improved patient outcomes. Early initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy constitutes a crucial component of the management strategy and thus early identification of the causative pathogen is essential in informing antimicrobial therapeutic choices. The BioFire FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved rapid, multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for use on positive blood cultures. This study evaluated its clinical utility in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, in terms of amendment of empiric antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with sepsis. The assay proved useful in this setting as final results were made available to clinicians significantly earlier than with conventional culture methods. This, in turn, allowed for modification of empirical antimicrobial therapy to more appropriate agents in 32% of patients. Additionally, the use of the BioFire FilmArray BCID panel permitted the prompt implementation of additional infection prevention and control practices in a sizeable proportion (14%) of patients in the study who were harbouring multidrug resistant pathogens. These findings support the use of the BioFire FilmArray BCID panel as a valuable adjunct to conventional culture methods for the diagnosis and subsequent management of critically ill patients with sepsis.

scholarly journals BEDSIDE LAPAROSCOPY AS DIAGNOSTIC TOOL REVIEW OF ABDOMINAL PATHOLOGIES IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS: REVIEW

2022 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danilo Coco ◽  
Silvana Leanza
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Laparoscopy ◽  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
Definite Diagnosis ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
Increase Rate

Introduction: The diagnosis of abdominal pathologies in critically ill patients is often difficult because of inconclusive laboratory tests or imaging results, or the inability to safely transfer a patient to the radiology room. These causes give a delayed diagnosis of abdominal pathology in the intensive care unit (ICU) and increase rate of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of bedside diagnostic laparoscopy in the identification of intra-abdominal pathology in critically ill patients. Aim: The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of bedside diagnostic laparoscopy in the identification of intra-abdominal pathology in critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: A  literature research was carried out including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases to identify articles reporting on importance of diagnostic accuracy of bedside diagnostic laparoscopy in the identification of intra-abdominal pathology in critically ill patients. Conclusions: Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy represents a safe and accurate technique for diagnosing intraabdominal pathology in an ICU setting and should be taken into consideration when patient transfer to radiology or the operating room is considered unsafe or when routine radiological examinations are not conclusive enough to reach a definite diagnosis. Keywords: Bedside laparoscopy, critically ill patients, ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) , emergency surgery

scholarly journals A Comparison of Blood Pathogen Detection Among Droplet Digital PCR, Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing, and Blood Culture in Critically Ill Patients With Suspected Bloodstream Infections

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bangchuan Hu ◽  
Yue Tao ◽  
Ziqiang Shao ◽  
Yang Zheng ◽  
Run Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Pathogen Detection ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Digital Pcr ◽  
Droplet Digital Pcr ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) have recently demonstrated a great potential for pathogen detection. However, few studies have been undertaken to compare these two nucleic acid detection methods for identifying pathogens in patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs). This prospective study was thus conducted to compare these two methods for diagnostic applications in a clinical setting for critically ill patients with suspected BSIs. Upon suspicion of BSIs, whole blood samples were simultaneously drawn for ddPCR covering 20 common isolated pathogens and four antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes, mNGS, and blood culture. Then, a head-to-head comparison was performed between ddPCR and mNGS. A total of 60 episodes of suspected BSIs were investigated in 45 critically ill patients, and ddPCR was positive in 50 (83.3%), mNGS in 41 (68.3%, not including viruses), and blood culture in 10 (16.7%) episodes. Of the 10 positive blood cultures, nine were concordantly identified by both mNGS and ddPCR methods. The head-to-head comparison showed that ddPCR was more rapid (~4 h vs. ~2 days) and sensitive (88 vs. 53 detectable pathogens) than mNGS within the detection range of ddPCR, while mNGS detected a broader range of pathogens (126 vs. 88 detectable pathogens, including viruses) than ddPCR. In addition, a total of 17 AMR genes, including 14 blaKPC and 3 mecA genes, were exclusively identified by ddPCR. Based on their respective limitations and strengths, the ddPCR method is more useful for rapid detection of common isolated pathogens as well as AMR genes in critically ill patients with suspected BSI, whereas mNGS testing is more appropriate for the diagnosis of BSI where classic microbiological or molecular diagnostic approaches fail to identify causative pathogens.

Hub qualitative blood culture is useful for diagnosis of catheter-related infections in critically ill patients

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 645-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michèle Tanguy ◽  
Philippe Seguin ◽  
Bruno Laviolle ◽  
Laurent Desbordes ◽  
Yannick Mallédant
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients

scholarly journals BioFire Film Array Blood Culture Identification Panel for Rapid Detection of Pathogens from Sterile Sites - A Diagnostic Accuracy Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Ailbhe Comyn ◽  
Aoife Ronayne ◽  
Maryke J. Nielsen ◽  
Jennifer Cleary ◽  
Robert Cunney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Salt Lake ◽  
Salt Lake City ◽  
Causative Organism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy Study ◽  
Tertiary Referral Hospital ◽  
Accuracy Study ◽  
Lake City ◽  
Culture Identification

Background: Rapid diagnosis of the causative organism of invasive infections is critical to the improved care of patients. A new platform, FilmArray (BioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT) allows for rapid PCR to be performed in less than two hours on positive blood cultures Objective: The aim was to perform a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a paediatric tertiary referral hospital comparing results from culture, our gold standard, against those obtained when the samples were tested directly using the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT). Method: Samples from sterile site infections were tested using traditional culture based methods as well as PCR testing, and these results were then compared to testing which was done directly on the FilmArray BC-ID panel. Results: Ninety-four samples were tested in total and concordant results were observed in 71 samples (76%). Correlation between detection of pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes by PCR and culture result was high (94% and 88% respectively). Discordant results could be explained by the cultured organism not having a target on the panel (n=8) or PCR detection of potentially non-viable bacteria in the sample (n=8); the remaining samples (n=9) were negative by PCR despite culturing an organism with a target present on the panel for that organism. We have demonstrated an overall correlation of 76% and that in some instances the PCR detected non-viable yet clinically significant bacteria. Conclusion: Use of the FilmArray BCID panel directly for samples from sterile sites should be considered when there is a high index of suspicion of a single-organism infection at that site prior to sampling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document