FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel Research Articles

Early detection of bacteremia pathogens with rapid molecular diagnostic tests and evaluation of effect on intensive care patient management

İntroductionThe BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification panel (BCID2), a rapid molecular blood culture identification test based on multiplex nested polymerase chain reaction. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes between the period before (pre-BCID2 group) and after (post-BCID2 group) the introduction of the BCID2 panel into our routine practice. MethodsThe primary endpoint was time to optimal antibiotherapy, and the secondary endpoints were duration of hospital and intensive care unit stay, 7-day, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates after bacteremia. ResultsThe median time from empirical antibiotherapy to optimal antimicrobial therapy was 4560 (IQR;3060-7140) minutes in the pre-BCID2 group and 1715 (IQR;1362- 2776.25) minutes (in the post-BCID2 group (p<0.05). ConclusionAdding the BCID2 panel may improve antibiotic management in critically ill bacteremia patients

BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel and Clinical Usefulness: A Systematic Review

BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel and Clinical Usefulness: A Systematic Review

Pitfalls of a Multiplex PCR Panel for Identification of Bloodstream Pathogens.

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel (BCID; bioMerieux) for the detection of bloodstream pathogens. From May to August 2022, up to 67 samples from positive blood cultures previously processed with BACTEC FX (BD) were collected and submitted to the BCID panel. BCID panel results were compared with traditional culture results. We tested 67 positive blood culture samples; 13 samples were from pediatric bottles of BACTEC Peds Plus/F media (BD). The overall sensitivity of the BCID panel was 89.9% (62/69; 95% CI, 80.2 - 95.3%). For blood-stream pathogens targeted by the BCID panel, sensitivity was 98.4% (62/63; 95% CI, 90.7 - > 99.9%). Interestingly, Proteus species were additionally detected in 6 samples from pediatric blood culture bottles. BCID demonstrated high clinical sensitivity for target pathogens, but positive findings for unexpected multiple targets or Proteus species require cautious interpretation to avoid false positives.

152. Impact of BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel 2 (BCID2) and Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Time to Optimal Antimicrobial Therapy in Patients with Positive Blood Cultures

Abstract Background Delayed treatment of bloodstream infections is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Conventional methods for organism identification and susceptibility data from blood cultures can take about 2-5 days. Technological advancements in gene-based polymerase chain reaction tests amplify DNA targets from positive blood cultures and can shorten the identification time of certain organisms and resistance genes, aiding in earlier optimization of antimicrobial therapy. Methods This pre/post quasi-experimental, single center study was conducted 6 months prior to and 6 months after implementation of the BCID2 panel. Patients with at least 1 positive blood culture with an organism on the BCID2 panel were included in the study. One hundred twenty-five patients were included in the pre-BCID2 arm and 114 patients in the BCID2 arm. In the BCID2 panel group, real-time alerts were received by the antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) and recommendations were made to providers. The primary outcomes were time to pathogen identification, effective therapy, and optimal therapy. Results Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. A higher percentage of patients with multiple risk factors for bacteremia were identified in the pre-BCID2 arm (36.8% vs 20.2%). The mean time to pathogen identification (60 hrs vs 30 hrs; P &amp;lt; 0.0001) and time to optimal therapy (61.4 hrs vs 44.6 hrs; P=0.001) were shorter in the BCID2 arm compared to the pre-BCID2 arm. Patients in the BCID2 arm had an overall trend toward decreased mean time to effective therapy compared with the pre-BCID2 arm (17.5 hours vs. 14 hours; P=0.18). Subgroup analysis of blood cultures with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp., ESBL-producing organisms, and Candida glabrata met statistical significance in all three primary outcomes. The BCID2 arm had a 21.9 hr. reduction in time to pathogen ID (49.6 v. 27.7; P=0.02), 38.9 hr. reduction in time to effective therapy (66.9 vs. 28; P=0.013), and a 54.5 hr. reduction in time to optimal therapy (89.3 vs 34.8; P=0.046). Overall, 99% of recommendations from the AST were accepted by providers. Primary Outcome Results Time to pathogen ID, Time to Effective Therapy, Time to Optimal Therapy Secondary Outcomes 1 Total length of stay, ICU length of stay, Microbiologic Cure Secondary Outcomes 2 30 day Mortality and Recurrent bacteremia Conclusion Implementation of the BCID2 panel significantly decreased time to pathogen identification and optimal therapy in patients with bacteremia. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

The Impact of the Rapid Blood Culture Identification Panel on Antibiotic Treatment and Clinical Outcomes in Bloodstream Infections, Particularly Those Associated with Multidrug-Resistant Micro-Organisms

We evaluated the impact of the FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel on the time taken to administer effective antibiotics and the clinical outcomes of bloodstream infections. We retrospectively screened patients with bloodstream infections who underwent BCID testing and compared them to a historical control group that received conventional culture testing. A total of 144 and 214 patients who underwent BCID and conventional cultures, respectively, were compared. The 30-day mortality (BCID: 9.7% vs. conventional method: 10.7%, p = 0.755), time to effective antibiotic administration (3 h for both BCID and conventional method, p = 0.789), and time to appropriate antibiotic administration did not differ significantly between the groups. BCID was not significantly associated with 30-day mortality after adjusting for the Pitt bacteremia score and the Charlson comorbidity index (adjusted OR = 0.833, CI; 0.398–1.743). Compared with conventional methods, BCID reduced the time to administration of effective antibiotics in cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (39 h vs. 93 h, p = 0.012) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) (50 h vs. 92 h, p &lt; 0.001) bacteremia. BCID did not affect the clinical outcomes of overall bloodstream infections; however, it contributed to the early administration of effective antibiotics in cases of CRE and VRE bacteremia.

The Significance of FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel (FA-BCID) for Managing Patients with Positive Blood Cultures.

We analyzed the accuracy and time efficiency of the FilmArray blood culture identification (FA-BCID) panel in identifying the pathogens in positive blood cultures. Two-hundred and seventy-two individuals were randomly assigned as the control (n = 212) and FA-BCID (n = 60) groups participating in this study. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) was used to assess the control group. Meanwhile, the FA-BCID group was evaluated using both FA-BCID and MALDI-TOF, and the results were compared. The identification results from 73% (44/60) of the blood samples demonstrated agreement between FA-BCID and MALDI-TOF. The FA-BCID panel detected mecA genes in seven Staphylococcus species; six cases were confirmed using antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In addition, KPC genes were detected in one Escherichia coli and one Klebsiella pneumoniae, although only the latter corresponded with the result from antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The turnaround time (TAT) for identification through FA-BCID was shorter, with a median of 3.6 [2.4-4.6] hours (p < 0.05). No significant differences in the clinical and microbial outcomes following the ASP were observed between FA-BCID and MALDI-TOF. These results suggest that the FA-BCID panel provides an identification result that is as reliable as that provided by the routine identification procedure but with shorter TAT; thus, the FA-BCID method is considered an effective and beneficial method for therapeutic decision making and the improvement of the ASP for patients with bloodstream infection.

Diagnostic efficiency of the FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction. The FilmArray blood culture identification panel (BCID) panel is a multiplex PCR assay with high sensitivity and specificity to identify the most common pathogens in bloodstream infections (BSIs).Hypothesis. We hypothesize that the BCID panel has good diagnostic performance for BSIs and can be popularized in clinical application.Aim: To provide summarized evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of the BCID panel for the identification of positive blood cultures.Methodology. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases through March 2021 and assessed the efficacy of the diagnostic test of the BCID panel. We performed a meta-analysis and calculated the summary sensitivity and specificity of the BCID panel. Systematic review protocols were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number CRD42021239176).Results. A total of 16 full-text articles were eligible for analysis. The overall sensitivities of the BCID panel on Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and fungi were 97 % (95 % CI, 0.96-0.98), 100 % (95 % CI, 0.98-01.00) and 99 % (95 % CI, 0.87-1.00), respectively. The pooled diagnostic specificities were 99 % (95 % CI, 0.97-1.00), 100 % (95 % CI, 1.00-1.00) and 100 % (95 % CI, 1.00-1.00) for Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and fungi, respectively.Conclusions. The BCID panel has high rule-in value for the early detection of BSI patients. The BCID panel can still provide valuable information for ruling out bacteremia or fungemia in populations with low pretest probability.

Microbiological Assessment of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel: Potential Impact in Critically Ill Patients.

Rapid pathogen detection and characterization from positive blood cultures are crucial in the management of patients with bloodstream infections (BSI) and in achieving their improved outcomes. In this context, the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID2) panel is an FDA approved molecular test, which can quickly identify different species and resistance determinants, thus making an impact in antimicrobial practice. In this study, we analyzed 136 positive blood cultures collected from septic critically ill patients from April 2021 to March 2023 by using the FilmArray BCID2 panel, and results obtained by fast molecular analysis were compared to those obtained by routine protocols. Overall, the BCID2 panel showed a strong concordance with conventional methods, particularly in the case of monomicrobial samples, whereas some discrepancies were found in 10/32 polymicrobial samples. Of note, this technique allowed us to identify a significant number of yeasts (37/94 samples) and to unravel the presence of several resistance markers, including both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. These findings strongly support the potential use of the BCID2 panel as an adjunct to the conventional microbiology methods for the management of critically ill septic patients, thus accelerating blood pathogen and resistance genes identification, focusing antibiotic therapy, and avoiding inappropriate and excessive use of drugs.

Usefulness of the FilmArray blood culture identification panel for identifying causative pathogens of bone and joint infections

As bone and joint infections (BJIs) require long-term treatment, identifying their causative pathogens is vital. However, the detection rate of conventional culturing remains inadequate. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel for identifying causative pathogens in patients with BJIs. We tested a BCID panel using collected samples, in addition to conventional cultures. The primary outcome was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the BCID panel, calculated using conventional culturing methods. A total of 44 patients who underwent BJI-related specimen collection were enrolled. Of the 44 patients, 22 were diagnosed with a BJI. Conventional culture identified 15 of 22 organisms (68.2%), whereas the BCID panel identified 14 of 22 organisms (63.4%). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the BCID panel were 73.3% and 57.1%, respectively, compared to those of the conventional culture. However, the sensitivity reached 100% when only pathogens included in the BCID panel were considered. In seven culture-negative cases, the BCID panel identified three organisms (42.9%). The BCID panel also indicated the appropriate therapy against a BJI caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by detecting the mecA gene. This study demonstrated that the BCID panel has the potential for early and accurate diagnosis of the causative organism of BJI using specimens such as joint fluid and bone tissue. Our results suggest that BCID panels, in addition to routine culture, may improve our ability to diagnose the causative microorganisms of BJI in clinical practice, thereby contributing to the selection of appropriate antimicrobial agents.

Large-Scale Clinical Evaluation of Rapid Blood Culture Identification Panels for Bloodstream Infections at a Tertiary Hospital

The prompt implementation of optimal antibacterial therapy through the rapid identification of the causative organisms is essential for improving outcomes for critically ill patients with bloodstream infections. We evaluated the clinical performance of the FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel for rapidly identifying causative pathogens in the bloodstream using large-scale clinical samples. We analyzed the results of identification using a BCID panel performed on 2005 positive blood culture bottles from September 2019 to June 2022. Pathogen detection efficiency and interval from Gram staining to identification using the BCID panel were compared to those of conventional identification systems-VITEK MS MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometer and Vitek2-and antibiotic susceptibility testing-Vitek2. We detected 2167 isolates from 2005 positive blood culture bottles. In these isolates, the BCID panel showed 93% full agreement-both organisms and antimicrobial resistance genes were matched, and no off-target organisms were detected. Species-level discordance was found in 0.6% of tests. Sixty-five isolates (3.0%) were only detected by BCID, whereas 22 isolates (1.0%) from the on-target panel were not detected by BCID. This large-scale study demonstrated that the BCID panel was a reliable and rapid identification method for directly identifying bloodstream pathogens in a positive blood culture.

Check the melting temperature of the FilmArray BCID panel to avoid missed detection of vanM-type enterococci

PurposeWe aimed to evaluate whether the FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel holds the ability to detect vanM-type vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) clinical isolates effectively. MethodsTwenty VRE clinical strains, including 10 vanA-type VRE and 10 vanM-type VRE, were collected from patients in five tertiary hospitals, Shanghai, China. By conventional PCR and sequencing, the strains were identified and van genotypes were confirmed. All VRE strains were investigated using the FilmArray BCID panel. All results, including enterococcus assay, vanA/B assay, DNA melting curves and melting temperature (Tm), were recorded. We also compared these results with those obtained via the conventional PCR and sequencing. ResultsAccording to the instructions of the FilmArray BCID panel, the Enterococcus assay is used to identify species and vanA/B assay is used to detect van genes. In all vanA-type VRE, the Enterococcus assay and vanA/B assay were positive. The results correctly showed that the tested strains were VRE. However, in 10 vanM-type VRE, the Enterococcus assay was positive and vanA/B assay were negative. The results mistakenly showed that the tested strains were vancomycin-sensitive enterococci (VSE). In the vanA/B assay, the melting curves of vanM-type VRE were similar to that of vanA-type VRE, but the Tm values were lower. The Tm values were then compared against the expected Tm range for the vanA/B assay. The Tm values of vanM-type VRE fall outside the assay-specific Tm range, resulting in negative reports. Thus, by adjusting the expected Tm range for the Enterococcus assay, the FilmArray BCID panel holds the ability to detect vanM-type VRE. ConclusionsThe vanM-type VRE isolates can be effectively detected by optimizing the expected Tm range for the vanA/B assay.

Concordance of the filmarray blood culture identification panel 2 and classical microbiological methods in a bacteriemia diagnostic unit

Our study evaluates the effectiveness of the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel 2 in a rapid bacteremia diagnostic system, using bacteriological culture as a reference. A total of 2042 positive blood cultures were analyzed, the FilmArray was performed for 175. Concordance was higher in monomicrobial bacteremia (95%) than in polymicrobial bacteremia's (72.2%). For detecting bacterial resistance mechanisms, concordance was very high (100% for Gram-positive bacteria and 98.12% for Gram-negative). This methodology provides significant improvements in response time and is especially useful for the detection of monomicrobial bacteremia.

Performance of the new FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel and its potential impact on clinical use in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia

IntroductionRapid diagnostic tests have been developed recently for rapid species or resistance genes identification, offering the potential to improve the selection of appropriate antibiotics. The newly developed FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel, which can identify more species and resistance genes, such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, is expected to make an impact on antimicrobial practice. MethodsThe consecutive 50 inpatients with Gram-negative bacilli bacteremia were enrolled to this retrospective single-center study. In addition to the existing FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) panel, we have implemented BCID2 panel for positive blood culture. The sensitivity and specificity of BCID and BCID2 panel were respectively calculated, and a simulation study of time to effective, optimal and de-escalation therapy was performed based on BCID or BCID2 result. ResultsA total of 52 Gram-negative organisms in 50 patients were identified from blood cultures. Of these, 45 (87%) organisms were detected by BCID2 panel, which was more than BCID panel (41 organisms, 79%). BCID2 panel detected 5 CTX-M genes, which were concordant with conventional method. The time to effective therapy did not differ between BCID arm and BCID2 arm; however, the median time to optimal therapy (34 h in BCID arm and 26 h in BCID2 arm, P = 0.0007) and the median time to de-escalation therapy (42 h in BCID arm and 22 h in BCID2 arm, P = 0.0005) were significantly shortened. ConclusionsThis simulation study of BCID2 panel showed high sensitivity and specificity, and the potential impact on shortening the time to optimal and de-escalation therapy.

Concordance of the Filmarray Blood Culture Identification Panel 2 and Classical Microbiological Methods in a Bacteriemia Diagnostic Unit

Concordance of the Filmarray Blood Culture Identification Panel 2 and Classical Microbiological Methods in a Bacteriemia Diagnostic Unit

Mathematical model of the cost-effectiveness of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel molecular rapid diagnostic test compared with conventional methods for identification of Escherichia coli bloodstream infections.

Gram-negative pathogens, such as Escherichia coli, are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and increasingly demonstrate antimicrobial resistance. Molecular rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) offer faster pathogen identification and susceptibility results, but higher costs compared with conventional methods. We determined the cost-effectiveness of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel, as a type of mRDT, compared with conventional methods in the identification of E. coli BSIs. We constructed a decision analytic model comparing BCID with conventional methods in the identification and susceptibility testing of hospitalized patients with E. coli BSIs from the perspective of the public healthcare payer. Model inputs were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by determining the per-patient admission cost, the QALYs garnered and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) where applicable. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. All costs reflect 2019 Canadian dollars. The Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses resulted in cost savings ($27 070.83 versus $35 649.81) and improved QALYs (8.65 versus 7.10) in favour of BCID. At a willingness to pay up to $100 000, BCID had a 72.6%-83.8% chance of being cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed length of stay and cost per day of hospitalization to have the most substantial impact on costs and QALYs. BCID was found to be cost-saving when used to diagnose E. coli BSI compared with conventional testing. Cost savings were most influenced by length of stay and cost per day of hospitalization.

Diagnostic accuracy of the BioFire FilmArray blood culture identification panel when used in critically ill patients with sepsis

Sepsis accounts for high mortality rates in critical care units. Prompt and accurate identification of causative pathogens and initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy is critical for the appropriate management of patients in order to optimise clinical outcomes. The BioFire FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) panel is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved rapid, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that is able to identify a variety of bacteria, fungi and antimicrobial resistance determinants directly from positive blood cultures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the BioFire FilmArray BCID panel against the gold standard of blood cultures. Seventy-eight positive blood cultures obtained from critically ill patients suspected of having sepsis were included in the study. Each bottle was processed with the BioFire FilmArray BCID panel as well as conventional culture methods. Diagnostic accuracy of the BioFire FilmArray BCID panel was determined. The assay demonstrated a high sensitivity and specificity for pathogen identification of 96.5% (95% CI, 91.3–99.0) and 99.7% (95% CI, 99.3–99.9), respectively. The findings of this study support the role of the BioFire FilmArray BCID panel in the management of critically ill patients with sepsis.

Clinical utility of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification panel in the adjustment of empiric antimicrobial therapy in the critically ill septic patient.

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.

Clinical consequences of contaminated blood cultures in adult hospitalized patients at an institution utilizing a rapid blood-culture identification system

To assess the clinical impact of contaminated blood cultures in hospitalized patients during a period when rapid diagnostic testing using a FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) panel was in use. Retrospective cohort study. Single academic medical center. Patients who had blood culture(s) performed during an admission between June 2014 and December 2016. Length of hospital stay and days of antibiotic therapy were assessed in relation to blood-culture contamination using generalized linear models with univariable and multivariable analyses. Among 11,474 patients who had blood cultures performed, the adjusted mean length of hospital stay for patients with contaminated blood-culture episodes (N = 464) was 12.3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4-13.2) compared to 11.5 days (95% CI, 11.0-11.9) for patients (N = 11,010) with negative blood-culture episodes (P = .032). The adjusted mean durations of antibiotic therapy for patients with contaminated and negative blood-culture episodes were 6.0 days (95% CI, 5.3-6.7) and 5.2 days (95% CI, 4.9-5.4), respectively (P = .011). Despite the use of molecular-based, rapid blood-culture identification, contamination of blood cultures continues to result in prolonged hospital stay and unnecessary antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients.

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

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.Results132 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.ConclusionAntimicrobial 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.

Clinical Impact of BioFire Film Array in Pediatric Sepsis

Abstract Objective Rapid molecular tests are important components of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) and for early and accurate diagnosis of sepsis etiology. Their utility in helping providers to de-escalate therapy remains a subject of debate, especially among patients with chronic conditions and indwelling devices. Methods We have conducted a retrospective cohort study of medical records from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2018, following the implementation at our institution of the BioFire FilmArray blood culture identification panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States). We have assessed the clinical impact of the assay looking at antimicrobial optimization and time needed to make this change in different pediatric wards. Results Two hundred and twenty-nine patients were included in our analysis. We identified a significant statistical difference between different pediatric wards regarding antimicrobial therapy optimization (p &lt; 0.001) and between the type of therapeutic attitude related to BioFire result, escalation versus de-escalation, or no change (p &lt; 0.03). The likelihood for an infectious disease consult requested upon BioFire result to lead to an antimicrobial regimen optimization was also statistically significant (p &lt; 0.01). The positive BioFire results were associated with antimicrobial escalation in 81.4% of cases, with approximately 75% of changes made within 12 hours of the assay result. Conclusion Our study suggests that BioFire Film Array does not help de-escalating the therapy in patients with chronic disorders. Physician education and level of confidence in the assay remains an essential obstacle in maximizing the test performance in clinical practice. In recent years, the market for more sensitive and comprehensive rapid molecular diagnostic tests has evolved rapidly, requiring effective ASP to optimize the management of infectious diseases.