scholarly journals 1368. The Clinical Impact of BioFire BCID2 Compared to BCID in a U.S. Pediatric Hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S694-S694
Author(s):  
Kelly E Graff ◽  
Claire Palmer ◽  
Toraj Anarestani ◽  
Darcy Velasquez ◽  
Stacey Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Enterococcus Faecalis ◽  
Resistance Genes ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Enteric Bacteria ◽  
Species Level ◽  
Effective Therapy ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Standard Culture ◽  
Culture Identification

Abstract Background Multiplex PCR panels, particularly BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID), have been shown to decrease time to pathogen identification and time to effective and optimal antimicrobial therapy. BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) has an additional 17 targets and resistance genes compared to BCID. There is limited data on the impact of these expanded targets in pediatric populations. Methods We performed a head-to-head comparison between BioFire BCID2 with BCID when compared to standard culture. From January 2020- May 2020, we ran BCID2 simultaneously as a research use only prototype with the current standard of care on all blood culture specimens at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Percent agreement was calculated with BCID2 compared to standard culture and BCID compared to standard culture. Time to positivity, time to optimal therapy, and time to effective therapy were also calculated. Results We performed an interim analysis halfway through the study with 86 unique positive blood cultures. We found equal organism detection rates between BCID and BCID2 when compared to standard culture (88% each). BCID2 correctly identified 100% of target organisms. There were 10 (12%) isolates that only grew in culture that were not BCID or BCID2 targets. Compared to BCID, BCID2 was able to detect to the species level on 23 additional isolates. Most notably, 3 Enterococcus faecalis isolates were detected on BCID2, which would have resulted in a theoretical decrease in time to optimal antimicrobial therapy. Three CTX-M genes were detected on the resistance panels for Enteric bacteria, which could have resulted in a theoretical decrease in time to effective therapy. Conclusion BioFire BCID2 had equal rates of detection when compared to BCID in pediatric patients. It has the additional advantage of detecting more organisms at the species level, with clinical significance for Enterococcus faecalis specifically. With the additional resistance genes, it also has the potential to impact care with early identification of ESBL-producing Enteric pathogens. Disclosures Kelly E. Graff, MD, BioFire Diagnostics, LLC (Grant/Research Support) Claire Palmer, MS, BioFire Diagnostics, LLC (Grant/Research Support) Toraj Anarestani, MT(ASCP), BioFire Diagnostics, LLC (Grant/Research Support) Darcy Velasquez, MS, MB (ASCP)CM, BioFire Diagnostics, LLC (Grant/Research Support) Stacey Hamilton, MT(ASCP)SM, BioFire Diagnostics, LLC (Grant/Research Support) Kristin Pretty, n/a, BioFire Diagnostics, LLC (Grant/Research Support) Samuel Dominguez, MD, PhD, BioFire (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)

scholarly journals 200. Prospective Evaluation of the GenMark Dx ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Gram Positive Panel

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S208-S208
Author(s):  
Jeremy Meeder ◽  
Derek Moates ◽  
Hannah Pierce ◽  
Jamie Hutchinson ◽  
Cameron White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Resistance Genes ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Meca Gene ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Gene Detection ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Coagulase Negative Staphylococci ◽  
Material Support

Abstract Background The ePlex BCID Gram-Positive (GP) panel utilizes electrowetting technology to detect the most common causes of GP bacteremia (20 targets) and 4 antimicrobial resistance genes in positive blood culture bottles. Rapid detection of intrinsic vancomycin resistance and acquired resistance genes (mecA, mecC, vanA, vanB) enables early optimization of antimicrobial therapy whereas early detection of common contaminants decreases unnecessary antibiotic utilization and hospitalizations. Methods In this prospective study, we evaluated the performance of the BCID-GP panel compared to traditional standard of care culture and susceptibility testing with organism identification using the BioMerieux Vitek MS Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization (MALDI) Time of Flight mass spectrometry. Samples submitted for standard of care testing in Biomerieux BacT/Alert resin FA/FN blood culture bottles on the BacT/Alert VIRTUO automated blood culture system with GP bacteria on direct exam (n=100) were included. Results All GP bacteria were represented on the BCID-GP panel, most tests 97/100 (97%) yielded valid results, 53 common skin contaminants (50 coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS), 2 Bacillus, 1 Corynebacterium) were identified, and 7/7 coinfections with Gram negative (GN) bacteria were detected by the Pan GN target and identified by the BCID-GN panel. Discordant analyses revealed a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 96/97 (99%) with 1 false negative CNS and a negative percent agreement (NPA) of 92/97 (94.8%) with 5 false positives for either S. epidermidis or Corynebacterium. Detection of vanA yielded a PPA of 4/4 and NPA of 9/9. mecA gene detection exhibited a PPA of 14/14 and NPA of 14/14 for S. aureus and a PPA of 31/32 (97%) and NPA of 16/16 for coagulase negative staphylococci with 1 false negative methicillin resistant S. epidermidis. Conclusion Detection of acquired vancomycin resistance (n=4) and absence of mecA gene detection in Staphylococcus species (n=30) represent opportunities for early optimization of antimicrobial therapy in 34/100 (34%) of samples. The BCID-GP panel provides rapid accurate detection of resistant isolates and common contaminants enabling high quality data driven optimization of antimicrobial therapy. Disclosures Todd P. McCarty, MD, Cidara (Grant/Research Support)GenMark (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria for Research Presentation)T2 Biosystems (Consultant) Sixto M. Leal, Jr., MD, PhD, Abnova (Grant/Research Support)AltImmune (Grant/Research Support)Amplyx Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)Astellas Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)CNINE Dx (Grant/Research Support)GenMark Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria- Research Presentation)IHMA (Grant/Research Support)IMMY Dx (Grant/Research Support)JMI/Sentry (Grant/Research Support)mFluiDx Dx (Grant/Research Support)SpeeDx Dx (Grant/Research Support)Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)

scholarly journals 300. Pediatric Center Evaluation of the BioFire® Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel Versus the Original BioFire®FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification Panel for the Detection of Microorganisms and Resistance Markers in Positive Blood Cultures

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S148-S149
Author(s):  
Kristina B Pierce ◽  
Rebecca Barr ◽  
Aubrie Hopper ◽  
Charlotte Bowerbank ◽  
Anne Shaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Species Level ◽  
Genus Level ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance Genes ◽  
Culture Identification

Abstract Background Studies show a rising annual incidence of severe sepsis, with bloodstream infections continuing to impact children. Rapid identification of causative agents and timely administration of targeted therapy can positively impact patient outcomes and improve antibiotic stewardship. The BioFire® Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, LLC), an updated version of the FDA-cleared BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel, designed for use on positive blood cultures (PBCs), assesses 43 analytes, including 17 novel analytes (8 bacterial, 2 fungal, and 7 antimicrobial resistance genes), with a similar turnaround time. Methods De-identified residual PBCs for which clinician-ordered testing per standard of care (SoC) had been performed were enrolled and tested with an Investigation-Use-Only version of the BCID2 Panel. Only one positive bottle per patient was enrolled. Results of BCID2 and BCID were compared. Results 116 PBCs (48 aerobic and 68 anaerobic) were evaluated using the BioFire BCID2 Panel and results were compared to the BioFire BCID Panel. Of the 116 cases, 103 were positive on both the BioFire BCID2 Panel and the BioFire BCID Panel. Ten cases were negative on both tests. While the two panels showed 97% agreement, three cases were discrepant. Using culture (SoC) as the tiebreaker, two cases were false positive and one case was false negative on the BioFire BCID Panel. In all three cases, results from culture and the BioFire BCID2 Panel were in agreement. As expected, no organisms were detected on the BioFire BCID2 Panel in PBCs from 10% (12/116) of PBC bottles where culture identified only organisms that are not part of the panel menu. With the BioFire BCID2 Panel’s expanded platform, two cases identified as Enterobacteriaceae on the BioFire BCID Panel were identified to the genus level on the BioFire BCID2 Panel; 31 cases detected to the genus level on the BioFire BCID Panel were identified to the species level on the BioFire BCID2 Panel. Conclusion Overall, the BioFire BCID2 Panel performed well against the BioFire BCID Panel for identification of bloodstream pathogens and provided additional discrimination of some pathogens to the genus or species level. Data presented are from assays that have not been cleared or approved for diagnostic use. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

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 Evaluation of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel: Results of a Multicenter Controlled Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Salimnia ◽  
Marilynn R. Fairfax ◽  
Paul R. Lephart ◽  
Paul Schreckenberger ◽  
Sharon M. DesJarlais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Resistance Genes ◽  
Salt Lake ◽  
Klebsiella Oxytoca ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Clinical Specimens ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance Genes ◽  
Culture Identification

Sepsis is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and increased medical expense. Rapid diagnosis improves outcomes and reduces costs. The FilmArray blood culture identification panel (BioFire Diagnostics LLC, Salt Lake City, UT), a highly multiplexed PCR assay, can identify 24 etiologic agents of sepsis (8 Gram-positive, 11 Gram-negative, and 5 yeast species) and three antimicrobial resistance genes (mecA,vanA/B, andblaKPC) from positive blood culture bottles. It provides results in about 1 h with 2 min for assay setup. We present the results of an eight-center trial comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the panel with those of the laboratories' standard phenotypic identification techniques, as well as with molecular methods used to distinguishAcinetobacter baumanniifrom other members of theA. calcoaceticus-A. baumanniicomplex and to detect antimicrobial resistance genes. Testing included 2,207 positive aerobic blood culture samples, 1,568 clinical and 639 seeded. Samples were tested fresh or were frozen for later testing within 8 h after the bottles were flagged as positive by an automated blood culture system. At least one organism was detected by the panel in 1,382 (88.1%) of the positive clinical specimens. The others contained primarily off-panel organisms. The panel reported multiple organisms in 81 (5.86%) positive clinical specimens. The unresolved blood culture identification sensitivity for all target detections exceeded 96%, except forKlebsiella oxytoca(92.2%), which achieved 98.3% sensitivity after resolution of an unavoidable phenotypic error. The sensitivity and specificity forvanA/BandblaKPCwere 100%; those formecAwere 98.4 and 98.3%, respectively.

scholarly journals Benefits of Adding a Rapid PCR-Based Blood Culture Identification Panel to an Established Antimicrobial Stewardship Program

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (10) ◽  
pp. 2455-2463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn H. MacVane ◽  
Frederick S. Nolte
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Bacterial Species ◽  
Effective Therapy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stewardship Program ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance Genes ◽  
Culture Identification ◽  
Organism Identification

Studies have demonstrated that the combination of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) and rapid organism identification improves outcomes in bloodstream infections (BSI) but have not controlled for the incremental contribution of the individual components. Hospitalized adult patients with blood culture pathogens on a rapid, multiplex PCR-based blood culture identification panel (BCID) that included 19 bacterial species, 5Candidaspp., and 4 antimicrobial resistance genes were studied over sequential time periods in a pre-post quasiexperimental study in 3 groups in the following categories: conventional organism identification (controls), conventional organism identification with ASP (AS), and BCID with ASP (BCID). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups. There were 783 patients with positive blood cultures; of those patients, 364 (115 control, 104 AS, and 145 BCID) met inclusion criteria. The time from blood culture collection to organism identification was shorter in the BCID group (17 h;P< 0.001) than in the control group (57 h) or the AS group (54 h). The BCID group had a shorter time to effective therapy (5 h;P< 0.001) than the control group (15 h) or AS group (13 h). The AS (57%) and BCID (52%) groups had higher rates of antimicrobial de-escalation than the control group (34%), with de-escalation occurring sooner in the BCID group (48 h;P= 0.034) than in the AS group (61 h) or the control group (63 h). No difference between the control group, AS group, and BCID group was seen with respect to mortality, 30-day readmission, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), postculture LOS, or costs. In patients with BSI, ASP alone improved antimicrobial utilization. Addition of BCID to an established ASP shortened the time to effective therapy and further improved antimicrobial use compared to ASP alone, even in a setting of low antimicrobial resistance rates.

scholarly journals 1998. Impact of Rapid Blood Culture Identification with Real-Time Antimicrobial Stewardship (ASP) in Patients with Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Enterococcus spp. Bacteremia at a Large Academic Medical Center

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S670-S670
Author(s):  
Hannah Ryan Russo ◽  
Kady Phe ◽  
Mayar Al Mohajer ◽  
Jessica Hirase
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Active Therapy ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Optimal Therapy ◽  
Enterococcus Spp ◽  
Culture Identification

Abstract Background The initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy is dependent on timely identification of the pathogen. FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel (BCID) is a rapid, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel that identifies 24 pathogens and 3 antibiotic resistance genes associated with bloodstream infections within 1 hour of growth. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical impact of rapid BCID testing vs. standard blood culture processing, both coupled with real-time ASP, in patients with S. aureus and Enterococcus spp. bacteremia. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective chart review conducted as a pre-post intervention quasi-experimental study. The pre-intervention group included adult patients with S.aureus and Enterococcus spp. bacteremia identified by standard blood culture processing (PRE) and the post-intervention group included those identified by rapid BCID testing (POST). The primary endpoint was time in hours from positive Gram stain to initiation of optimal antimicrobial therapy [defined as vancomycin (VAN), linezolid (LZD), daptomycin (DAP), or ceftaroline for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA); nafcillin or cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA); DAP or LZD for VAN-resistant Enterococcus (VRE); VAN or ampicillin (if susceptible) for VAN-susceptible Enterococcus (VSE)]. Secondary endpoints included time to active therapy (defined as an antimicrobial to which the organism was susceptible), time to identification of pathogen, length of hospital stay (LOS) after positive culture, and 30-day mortality. Results 132 patients were included. Mean time to optimal therapy decreased from 21.4 hours PRE to 10.7 hours POST (P = 0.048). Time to optimal therapy was shorter POST for MSSA [59.2 hours PRE vs. 25.8 hours POST (P < 0.001)] and VRE bacteremia [24.6 hours PRE vs. 5.6 hours POST (P = 0.005)]. Time to identification of pathogen decreased from 75.6 hours PRE to 2.7 hours POST (P < 0.001). Groups did not differ in time to active therapy, LOS, nor 30-day mortality. Conclusion Antimicrobial Stewardship coupled with rapid BCID testing significantly decreased time to pathogen identification as well as time to optimal therapy in patients with S. aureus and Enterococcus spp. bacteremia, most notably for MSSA and VRE. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals 214. Prospective Evaluation of the GenMark Dx ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Gram Negative Panel

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S215-S215
Author(s):  
Jeremy Meeder ◽  
Derek Moates ◽  
Hannah Pierce ◽  
Jamie Hutchinson ◽  
Pia Cumagun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
M Gene ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Percent Agreement

Abstract Background The ePlex BCID Gram-Negative (GN) panel utilizes electrowetting technology to detect the most common causes of GN bacteremia (21 targets) and 6 antimicrobial resistance genes from positive blood culture bottles. Rapid detection of extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL; CTX-M), carbapenemases (KPC, NDM, IMP, VIM, OXA 23/48), and highly resistant bacteria such as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia enables early optimization of antimicrobial therapy. Methods In this prospective study, we evaluated the performance of the BCID-GN panel compared to traditional standard of care culture and susceptibility testing with organism identification using the BioMerieux Vitek MS Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization (MALDI) Time of Flight mass spectrometry. Samples submitted for standard of care testing in Biomerieux BacT/Alert resin FA/FN blood culture bottles on the BacT/Alert VIRTUO automated blood culture system with GN bacteria on direct exam (n=108) were included. Results All but two GN bacteria identified by MALDI were represented on the BCID-GN Panel (106/108, 98.1%) and most tests (107/108, 99.1%) yielded valid results. Discordant analyses revealed a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 102/105 (97.2%) with 3 false negatives (2 pan-susceptible Enterobacterales, 1 ESBL E.coli) and a negative percent agreement (NPA) of 105/105 (100%). Consistent with alternative resistance mechanisms, only 8/12 (66.7%) of Enterobacterales with resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins harbored the CTX-M gene. In contrast, 8/8 (100%) of isolates from samples harboring the CTX-M gene were resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporins. Conclusion Detection of 1 S. maltophilia, 1 Acinetobacter baumannii expressing OXA 23/48, and 8 Enterobacterales expressing CTX-M represent opportunities for early optimization of antimicrobial therapy in 10/108 (9.3%) of samples. The BCID-GN Panel provides rapid accurate detection of resistant gram negative bacteria enabling high quality data driven optimization of antimicrobial therapy. Disclosures Todd P. McCarty, MD, Cidara (Grant/Research Support)GenMark (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria for Research Presentation)T2 Biosystems (Consultant) Sixto M. Leal, Jr., MD, PhD, Abnova (Grant/Research Support)AltImmune (Grant/Research Support)Amplyx Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)Astellas Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)CNINE Dx (Grant/Research Support)GenMark Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria- Research Presentation)IHMA (Grant/Research Support)IMMY Dx (Grant/Research Support)JMI/Sentry (Grant/Research Support)mFluiDx Dx (Grant/Research Support)SpeeDx Dx (Grant/Research Support)Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals (Grant/Research Support)

scholarly journals Is it actionable? An Evaluation of the Rapid PCR-Based Blood Culture Identification Panel on the Management of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Blood Stream Infections

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Tseng ◽  
Sabirah N. Kasule ◽  
Felicia Rice ◽  
Lanyu Mi ◽  
Lynn Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Blood Stream ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Blood Stream Infections ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Discharge Disposition ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Culture Identification ◽  
Organism Identification

ABSTRACTBackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of rapid blood culture identification (BCID) panels in antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). While many studies have looked at its clinical and economic utility, its comparative utility in gram-positive and gram-negative blood stream infections (BSI) have not been as well characterized.MethodsThe study was a quasi-experimental retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. All adult patients with positive blood cultures before BCID implementation (June 2015 to December 2015) and after BCID implementation (June 2016 to December 2016) were included. The outcomes of interest included: time to first appropriate antibiotic escalation, time to first appropriate antibiotic de-escalation, time to organism identification, LOS, infectious disease consultation, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsIn total, 203 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in the time to organism identification between pre- and post-BCID cohorts (27.1h vs. 3.3h, p<0.0001). BCID did not significantly reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation for either GP-BSIs or GN-BSIs. Providers were more likely to escalate antimicrobial therapy in GP-BSIs after gram stain and more likely to de-escalate therapy in GN-BSIs after susceptibilities. While there were no significant differences in changes in antimicrobial therapy after organism identification by BCID, over a quarter of providers (28.1%) made changes after organism identification.ConclusionsWhile BCID significantly reduced the time to identification for both GP-BSIs and GN-BSIs, BCID did not reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation and de-escalation.

scholarly journals Impact of a Multiplex PCR Assay for Bloodstream Infections With and Without Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention at a Cancer Hospital

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A Buss ◽  
Timothy J Baures ◽  
Minkyoung Yoo ◽  
Kimberly E Hanson ◽  
Donald P Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Multiplex Pcr ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Cancer Hospital ◽  
Multiplex Pcr Assay ◽  
Culture Identification ◽  
Reduced Time

Abstract Implementation of Biofire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Multiplex PCR panel (BCID) at a cancer hospital was associated with reduced time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Additional reductions were not observed when BCID was coupled with antimicrobial stewardship intervention.

scholarly journals Is It Actionable? An Evaluation of the Rapid PCR-Based Blood Culture Identification Panel on the Management of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Blood Stream Infections

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew S Tseng ◽  
Sabirah N Kasule ◽  
Felicia Rice ◽  
Lanyu Mi ◽  
Lynn Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Blood Stream ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Blood Stream Infections ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Culture Identification ◽  
Organism Identification

Abstract Background There is growing interest in the use of rapid blood culture identification (BCID) in antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although many studies have looked at its clinical and economic utility, its comparative utility in gram-positive and gram-negative blood stream infections (BSIs) has not been as well characterized. Methods The study was a quasi-experimental retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. All adult patients with positive blood cultures before BCID implementation (June 2015 to December 2015) and after BCID implementation (June 2016 to December 2016) were included. The outcomes of interest included time to first appropriate antibiotic escalation, time to first appropriate antibiotic de-escalation, time to organism identification, length of stay, infectious diseases consultation, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality. Results In total, 203 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in the time to organism identification between the pre- and post-BCID cohorts (27.1 hours vs 3.3 hours, P &lt; .0001). BCID did not significantly reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation for either gram-positive BSIs (GP-BSIs) or gram-negative BSIs (GN-BSIs). Providers were more likely to escalate antimicrobial therapy in GP-BSIs after gram stain and more likely to de-escalate therapy in GN-BSIs after susceptibilities. Although there were no significant differences in changes in antimicrobial therapy for organism identification by BCID vs traditional methods, more than one-quarter of providers (28.1%) made changes after organism identification. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or in-hospital mortality comparing pre- vs post-BCID. Conclusions Although BCID significantly reduced the time to identification for both GP-BSIs and GN-BSIs, BCID did not reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation and de-escalation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document