LightCycler SeptiFast technology in patients with solid malignancies: clinical utility for rapid etiologic diagnosis of sepsis

Lenka Dubská,Dagmar Minaříková,Dalibor Valík,Martina Vyskočilová,Petr Jelínek,Renata Tejkalová

doi:10.1186/cc10595

Lenka Dubská, Dagmar Minaříková + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10595

Copy DOI

Abstract

We retrospectively evaluated 54 results of the SeptiFast test from patients with solid malignancy admitted to the ICU between June 2009 and August 2011. Specimens from suspected bloodstream infection were analyzed using LightCycler SeptiFast (Roche Molecular Diagnostics according to the manufacturers instruction and evaluated in comparison with blood culture results obtained from blood sampled no longer than 24 hours before or after sampling for SeptiFast. Blood culturing and identification were performed according to the routine diagnostic procedures. The total number of blood cultures analyzed was 85, and finding a microorganism by either of the two tests was evaluated as positive. Consistently, negative results from SeptiFast and blood culture were obtained in 21 (39%) cases.

Highlights

We retrospectively evaluated 54 results of the SeptiFast test from patients with solid malignancy admitted to the ICU between June 2009 and August 2011
The clinically relevant presence of a pathogen detected by blood culture but not by SeptiFast was recorded for Klebsiella pneumoniae/oxytoca, and in both cases the presence of another member of Enterobacteriaceae was reported by SeptiFast, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae/aerogenes – misidentification of strains with atypical phenotype cannot be excluded [3]
Our results show that SeptiFast is more efficient in detection of clinically relevant infection by E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Summary

Introduction

We retrospectively evaluated 54 results of the SeptiFast test from patients with solid malignancy admitted to the ICU between June 2009 and August 2011. Negative results from SeptiFast and blood culture were obtained in 21 (39%) cases. To assess the true positivity of both microbiological methods, discrepant cases were evaluated in the context of clinical and laboratory findings by two independent physicians experienced in critical care (Figure 1).

Results

Conclusion