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 Introduction of Gram negative microrganisms rapid identification and direct susceptibility testing to reduce turnaround time in blood cultures

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Vittoria Mauro ◽  
Saveria Dodaro ◽  
Daniela Perugini ◽  
Francesca Greco ◽  
Cristina Giraldi
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Infectious Agent ◽  
Direct Methods ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Microbial Identification

Background. Bloodstream infections and sepsis are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The successful outcome of patients suffering from bacteremia depends on a rapid identification of the infectious agent to guide optimal antibiotic treatment. Beginning antimicrobial therapy early is vital for the treatment of bloodstream infections and sepsis. Reducing the time for microbial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing could decrease the average time needed for an appropriate antimicrobial therapy which leads to a decrease in mortality, a shortened hospital stay, and lower hospitalization costs.Methods. The direct identification and the antibiotic susceptibility testing evaluated with disk diffusion directly from blood cultures provided excellent results in Gram-negative.Results and Conclusions. Our study reveals the importance of direct methods that significantly reduce the turn around time and therefore has an impact on the successful outcome of patients suffering from bloodstream infections.

scholarly journals Rapid Detection of Bloodstream Pathogens in Oncologic Patients with a FilmArray Multiplex PCR Assay: a Comparison with Culture Methods

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Szymankiewicz ◽  
Beata Nakonowska
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Multiplex Pcr ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Pcr Assay ◽  
Culture Methods ◽  
Multiplex Pcr Assay ◽  
Oncologic Patients ◽  
Culture Identification

The results of the FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification Panel (BCID) (BioFire Diagnostics) and the culture with susceptibility testing of 70 positive blood cultures from oncologic patients were compared. The multiplex PCR assay (BCID) identified 81 of the 83 isolates (97.6%), covered by the panel. The panel produced results in significantly shorter time than standard identification methods, when counted from receiving positive blood cultures bottles to the final results. It is an accurate method for the rapid identification of pathogens and resistance genes from blood culture in oncologic patients.

scholarly journals Rapid Identification of Candida Species from Positive Blood Cultures by Use of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew E. Simor ◽  
Vanessa Porter ◽  
Samira Mubareka ◽  
Marc Chouinard ◽  
Kevin Katz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Candida Species ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Culture Identification

scholarly journals Evaluation of the ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels for Detection of Pathogens in Bloodstream Infections

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Te-Din Huang ◽  
Ekaterina Melnik ◽  
Pierre Bogaerts ◽  
Stephanie Evrard ◽  
Youri Glupczynski
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Positive Blood Culture ◽  
Fungal Pathogens ◽  
Bacterial Resistance ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Culture Identification

ABSTRACT Rapid identification and susceptibility testing results are of importance for the early appropriate therapy of bloodstream infections. The ePlex (GenMark Diagnostics) blood culture identification (BCID) panels are fully automated PCR-based assays designed to identify Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and bacterial resistance genes within 1.5 h from positive blood culture. Consecutive non-duplicate positive blood culture episodes were tested by the ePlex system prospectively. The choice of panel(s) (Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and/or fungal pathogens) was defined by Gram-stained microscopy of blood culture-positive bottles (BacT/Alert; bioMérieux). Results with the ePlex panels were compared to the identification results obtained by standard culture-based workflow. In total, 216 positive blood culture episodes were evaluable, yielding 263 identification results. The sensitivity/positive predictive value for detection by the ePlex panels of targeted cultured isolates were 97% and 99% for the Gram-positive panel and 99% and 96% for the Gram-negative panel, resulting in overall agreement rates of 96% and 94% for the Gram-positive and Gram-negative panel, respectively. All 26 samples with targeted resistance results were correctly detected by the ePlex panels. The ePlex panels provided highly accurate results and proved to be an excellent diagnostic tool for the rapid identification of pathogens causing bloodstream infections. The short time to results may be of added value for optimizing the clinical management of patients with sepsis.

Quality Improvement Project Demonstrate that Prolonged Pre-Analytical Time Does Not Lead to False Negative Blood Cultures

2020 ◽  
Vol 154 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S140-S140
Author(s):  
E Abada ◽  
M Y Khan ◽  
N Yerrapotu ◽  
V Pardeshi ◽  
F Zaiem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Negative Culture ◽  
Analytical Time

Abstract Introduction/Objective Bacterial infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Prompt identification of microorganisms and their susceptibilities to antimicrobial therapies is critical in the management of patients with bloodstream infections. Blood cultures are collected in paired aerobic and anaerobic bottles. However, transport delays might allow some organisms to grow extensively prior to incubation in the blood culture instruments, leading to false-negative culture results. The Detroit Medical Center utilizes the BD Bactec™ instruments for blood culture incubation and the Verigene DNA-based molecular assay for the identification of bacteria and major resistance genes. It has a core microbiology lab that serves 6 hospitals, however, 2 of the hospitals are remotely located. The aim of this project was to determine if transportation delays led to significant false-negative culture results. If significant false negativity occurred, additional Bactec™ instruments would need to be purchased. Methods For one month, we tracked the collection of blood cultures to incubation time at one of the remote hospitals. All blood cultures that remain negative after 164 hours of incubation are routinely discarded. However, in this case, they were subcultured to a Petri plate containing chocolate agar for 30 days. Any organisms that grew were identified by standard lab techniques. Results Of the 547 negative culture bottles that were subcultured for possible false-negative results, only 3 (0.5%) bottles grew bacteria. All three were isolated from different patients. The mean time from blood collection to incubation in the instrument was 4-8 hours. The isolates either met criteria for contaminated cultures, or they grew the same pathogen that had previously been identified in the paired bottle from the same culture. The organisms isolated include coagulase negative Staphylococcus species, Staphylococcus pettenkoferi, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. No unexpected pathogenic organisms were detected. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that prolonged pre-analytical time does not lead to false-negative blood culture results. The patients’ diagnoses were not changed, therefore, the purchase of additional blood culture instruments was not necessary. However, transportation time from the patient floors to the main microbiology lab needs to be improved to meet the recommended 2 hours pre-analytical time.

scholarly journals Rapid molecular detection of pathogenic microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance markers in blood cultures: evaluation and utility of the next-generation FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Holma ◽  
Jukka Torvikoski ◽  
Nathalie Friberg ◽  
Annika Nevalainen ◽  
Eveliina Tarkka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Gene Markers ◽  
Rdna Sequencing ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance Genes ◽  
Resistance Markers ◽  
Culture Identification

AbstractRapid detection of pathogens causing bloodstream infections (BSI) directly from positive blood cultures is of highest importance in order to enable an adequate and timely antimicrobial therapy. In this study, the utility and performance of a recently launched next-generation fully automated test system, the Biofire FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel, was evaluated using a set of 103 well-characterized microbial isolates including 29 antimicrobial resistance genes and 80 signal-positive and 23 signal-negative clinical blood culture samples. The results were compared to culture-based reference methods, MALDI-TOF, and/or 16S rDNA sequencing. Of the clinical blood culture samples, 68 were monomicrobial (85.0%) and 12 polymicrobial (15.0%). Six samples contained ESBL (blaCTX-M), two MRSA (mecA), and three MRSE (mecA) isolates. In overall, the FilmArray BCID2 panel detected well on-panel targets and resistance markers from mono- and polymicrobial samples. However, one Klebsiella aerogenes and one Bacteroides ovatus were undetected, and the assay falsely reported one Shigella flexneri as Escherichia coli. Hence, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting microbial species were 98.8% (95%CI, 95.8–99.9%) and 99.9% (95%CI, 99.8–99.9%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting of resistance gene markers were 100%. The results were available within 70 min from signal-positive blood cultures with minimal hands-on time. In conclusion, the BCID2 test allows reliable and simplified detection of a vast variety of clinically relevant microbes causing BSI and the most common antimicrobial resistance markers present among these isolates.

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of PCR–Electrospray Ionization/Mass Spectrometry (MS) and MALDI-TOF/MS for the Identification of Bacteria and Yeast from Positive Blood Culture Bottles

2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (7) ◽  
pp. 1057-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin J Kaleta ◽  
Andrew E Clark ◽  
Abdessalam Cherkaoui ◽  
Vicki H Wysocki ◽  
Elizabeth L Ingram ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Culture ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Rapid Identification ◽  
Blood Cultures ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Maldi Tof Ms ◽  
Esi Ms ◽  
Maldi Tof ◽  
Tof Ms

BACKGROUND Emerging technologies for rapid identification of microbes demonstrate a shift from traditional biochemical and molecular testing algorithms toward methods using mass spectrometry (MS) for the semiquantitative analysis of microbial proteins and genetic elements. This study was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 2 such technologies, PCR–electrospray ionization (ESI)/MS and MALDI-TOF/MS, with respect to phenotypic and biochemical profiling as a reference standard method. A positive challenge set of blood culture bottles was used to compare PCR-ESI/MS and MALDI-TOF/MS performance on a matched set of samples. METHODS We performed characterization of bloodstream infections from blood cultures using the Ibis T5000 PCR-ESI/MS and the Bruker MALDI Biotyper 2.0 (MALDI-TOF/MS) platforms for microbial identification. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by independent comparison of each method to phenotypic and biochemical characterization with Vitek2 analysis as the reference standard identification. RESULTS The diagnostic accuracy, represented as positive agreement, at the genus level was 0.965 (0.930–0.984) for PCR-ESI/MS and 0.969 (0.935–0.987) for MALDI-TOF/MS, and at the species level was 0.952 (0.912–0.974) with PCR-ESI/MS and 0.943 (0.902–0.968) for MALDI-TOF/MS. No statistically significant difference was found between PCR-ESI/MS and MALDI-TOF/MS in the ability to rapidly identify microorganisms isolated from blood culture. CONCLUSIONS Our results demonstrate that PCR-ESI/MS and MALDI-TOF/MS are equivalent in their ability to characterize bloodstream infections with respect to the reference standard, and highlight key differences in the methods that allow for each method to have a unique niche as a tool for rapid identification of microbes in blood cultures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document