Abstract

ABSTRACTThe BioFire blood culture identification (BCID) panel decreases time to pathogen identification and time to optimal antimicrobial therapy. The BioFire blood culture identification 2 (BCID2) panel is an expanded panel with 17 additional targets and resistance genes; however, there are limited data on its impact in pediatric patients. We compared the BioFire BCID2 panel and the BCID panel by assaying BCID2 simultaneously with the current standard of care on 191 consecutive blood culture specimens at Children’s Hospital Colorado. The primary outcome was equivalence, measured as percent agreement between the two panels and standard culture. The theoretical reduction in time to optimal therapy was calculated overall, with subanalyses performed on Enterococcus species and Gram-negative resistance genes. The percent agreement was equivalent between the two panels, with BCID at 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95 to 100%) and BCID2 at 97% (95% CI, 93 to 99%); the difference was 1.2% (95% CI, −0.8, 3.1%; P < 0.0001). There was not a significant reduction in time to theoretical optimal therapy with BCID2 compared to BCID for all cultures (reduction of 9 h, P = 0.3). Notably, 13 Enterococcus faecalis isolates were detected on BCID2, which would have resulted in a theoretical reduction in time to optimal antimicrobial therapy of 34 h (P = 0.0046). Five CTX-M genes were detected for enteric bacteria. The BioFire BCID2 panel had equal rates of detection compared to the BioFire BCID panel in pediatric patients. It had the advantage of detecting more organisms at the species level, and significantly reducing time to theoretical optimal antimicrobial therapy for Enterococcus faecalis. With the additional resistance genes, it also has the potential to impact care with earlier identification of resistant enteric pathogens.IMPORTANCE The BioFire BCID2 panel is an accurate panel that is equivalent to the BioFire BCID panel compared to standard culture. The BioFire BCID2 panel offers several advantages over the BioFire BCID panel, including enterococcal species identification, Gram-negative resistance gene detection, Salmonella identification, and the added mecA/mecC and SCCmec right extremity junction (MREJ) target for better Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) differentiation. Most importantly, it provides additional clinical impact with the potential to decrease the time to optimal antimicrobial therapy compared to the BioFire BCID panel, with likely further impact at institutions with a higher prevalence of Gram-negative resistance.

Highlights

  • The BioFire blood culture identification (BCID) panel decreases time to pathogen identification and time to optimal antimicrobial therapy

  • This study demonstrates that the BioFire blood culture identification 2 (BCID2) panel is equivalent to the BioFire

  • The additional two discrepant targets on BCID2 were due to coagulase-negative Staphylococcus misidentification at the species level, which is not clinically meaningful

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The BioFire blood culture identification (BCID) panel decreases time to pathogen identification and time to optimal antimicrobial therapy. The BioFire BCID2 panel offers several advantages over the BioFire BCID panel, including enterococcal species identification, Gram-negative resistance gene detection, Salmonella identification, and the added mecA/mecC and SCCmec right extremity junction (MREJ) target for better Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) differentiation Most importantly, it provides additional clinical impact with the potential to decrease the time to optimal antimicrobial therapy compared to the BioFire BCID panel, with likely further impact at institutions with a higher prevalence of Gram-negative resistance. This new assay includes targets for 11 Gram-positive bacteria, 15 Gram-negative bacteria, 7 fungal pathogens, and 10 antimicrobial resistance genes [6, 7] This expanded panel is not yet studied in pediatric patients, and its clinical impact in this population is unknown. Additional clinical impact of BCID2 over BCID was measured as a secondary outcome

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call