3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multicenter Evaluation of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel for Pathogen Detection in Bloodstream Infections

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          The FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel (BCID2; bioMérieux) is a fully automated PCR-based assay for identifying bacteria, fungi, and bacterial resistance markers in positive blood cultures (BC) in about 1 h. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the performance of the BCID2 panel for pathogen detection in positive BC. Conventional culture and BCID2 were performed in parallel at four tertiary-care hospitals. We included 152 positive BC—130 monomicrobial and 22 polymicrobial cultures—in this analysis. The BCID2 assay correctly identified 90% (88/98) of Gram-negative and 89% (70/79) of Gram-positive bacteria. Five bacterial isolates targeted by the BCID2 panel and recovered from five positive BC, including three polymicrobial cultures, were missed by the BCID2 assay. Fifteen isolates were off-panel organisms, accounting for 8% (15/182) of the isolates obtained from BC. The mean positive percent agreement between the BCID2 assay and standard culture was 97% (95% confidence interval, 95 to 99%), with agreement ranging from 67% for Candida albicans to 100% for 17 targets included in the BCID2 panel. BCID2 also identified the bla CTX-M gene in seven BC, including one for which no extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing isolate was obtained in culture. However, it failed to detect ESBL-encoding genes in three BC. Two of the 18 mecA/C genes detected by the BCID2 were not confirmed. No carbapenemase, mecA/C, or MREJ targets were detected. The median turnaround time was significantly shorter for BCID2 than for culture. The BCID2 panel may facilitate faster pathogen identification in bloodstream infections.

          IMPORTANCE Rapid molecular diagnosis combining the identification of pathogens and the detection of antibiotic resistance genes from positive blood cultures (BC) can improve the outcome for patients with bloodstream infections. The FilmArray BCID2 panel, an updated version of the original BCID, can detect 11 Gram-positive bacteria, 15 Gram-negative bacteria, 7 fungal pathogens, and 10 antimicrobial resistance genes directly from a positive BC. Here, we evaluated the real-life microbiological performance of the BCID2 assay in comparison to the results of standard methods used in routine practice at four tertiary care hospitals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

            Background The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis.

              Background In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. Methods We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. Results Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). Conclusions More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                Microbiol Spectr
                Microbiol Spectr
                spectrum
                Microbiology Spectrum
                American Society for Microbiology (1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC )
                2165-0497
                15 December 2022
                Jan-Feb 2023
                15 December 2022
                : 11
                : 1
                : e02547-22
                Affiliations
                [a ] Département de Bactériologie, Groupe Hospitalier Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                [b ] Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM, IAME, Paris, France
                [c ] Service de Microbiologie clinique, Groupe hospitalier Paris Saint Joseph, Paris, France
                [d ] Institut Micalis UMR 1319, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAe, AgroParisTech, Châtenay Malabry, France
                [e ] Laboratoire de Bactériologie, Institut de Biologie en Santé, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d’Angers, Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES EA3859, SFR ICAT 4208, Université d’Angers, Angers, France
                [f ] Laboratoire de Bactériologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier et MIVEGEC, UMR IRD-CNRS-Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
                [g ] Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Groupe Hospitalier Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                [h ] Institut Pasteur, Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Unité de Mycologie Moléculaire, UMR2000, Paris, France
                [i ] Département des Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Groupe Hospitalier Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                [j ] Département d’Anesthésie et Réanimation chirurgicale et brûlés, Groupe Hospitalier Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                [k ] Laboratoire de mycobactériologie spécialisée et de référence, Laboratoire associé du Centre National de Référence des mycobactéries et résistance des mycobactéries aux antituberculeux, Groupe Hospitalier Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                University Paris-Saclay, AP-HP Hôpital Antoine Béclère, Service de Microbiologie, Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell (I2BC), CEA, CNRS
                Author notes

                The authors declare a conflict of interest. This study was supported by bioMérieux (Marcy L'Etoile, France), which provided consumables. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or manuscript preparation. F.C. received lecture fees from bioMérieux. F.D. received lecture fees from bioMérieux, Sedana and grants from European Society of Intensive Care medicine, Société Française d'Anesthésie Reanimation and from the French ministry of research. A.A. received lecture fees and travel grants from Gilead science and Pfizer. He received grants from Agence Nationale de la Recherche. Other authors report no conflicts of interest.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0958-4802
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1603-3635
                Article
                02547-22 spectrum.02547-22
                10.1128/spectrum.02547-22
                9927563
                36519852
                b2827747-bf32-46b2-867b-b79d93a15f76
                Copyright © 2022 Caméléna et al.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

                History
                : 4 July 2022
                : 18 November 2022
                Page count
                supplementary-material: 0, Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 37, Pages: 9, Words: 6884
                Funding
                Funded by: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001665;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100013347;
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                bacteriology, Bacteriology
                Custom metadata
                January/February 2023

                bcid2,bsi,biofire,bloodstream infection,filmarray,molecular diagnosis,rapid diagnosis,genotypic identification,resistance gene,sepsis

                Comments

                Comment on this article