FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 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

The real-world impact of the BioFire FilmArray blood culture identification 2 panel on antimicrobial stewardship among patients with bloodstream infections in intensive care units with a high burden of drug-resistant pathogens

BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of drug-resistant pathogens leads to delays in adequate antimicrobial treatment in intensive care units (ICU). The real-world influence of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel on pathogen identification, diagnostic concordance with conventional culture methods, and antimicrobial stewardship in the ICU remains unexplored. MethodsThis retrospective observational study, conducted from July 2021 to August 2023, involved adult ICU patients with positive blood cultures who underwent BCID2 testing. The concordance between BCID2 and conventional culture results was examined, and its impact on antimicrobial stewardship was assessed through a comprehensive retrospective review of patient records by intensivists. ResultsA total of 129 blood specimens from 113 patients were analysed. Among these patients, a high proportion of drug-resistant strains were noted, including carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) (57.1%), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (100%), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (70%), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) (100%). The time from blood culture collection to obtaining BCID2 results was significantly shorter than conventional culture (46.2 h vs. 86.9 h, p < 0.001). BCID2 demonstrated 100% concordance in genotype–phenotype correlation in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) for CRKP, carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli, MRSA, and VRE. A total of 40.5% of patients received inadequate empirical antimicrobial treatment. The antimicrobial regimen was adjusted or confirmed in 55.4% of patients following the BCID2 results. ConclusionsIn the context of a high burden of drug-resistant pathogens, BCID2 demonstrated rapid pathogen and AMR detection, with a noticeable impact on antimicrobial stewardship in BSI in the ICU.

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

133. Impact of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel on Time to Antimicrobial Escalation or De-escalation in a Community Health System

Abstract Background The BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel is a rapid diagnostic tool that has been shown to decrease time to culture identification and effective therapy in bacteremia, particularly in conjunction with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) participation. The BCID2 panel was introduced at our 5-hospital community health system in May 2021. BCID2 results were relayed to care teams via the standard critical lab process (bedside nurse notified by phone) without notification of the AS team. This analysis compares outcomes after implementation of the BCID2 panel using a standard laboratory notification process. Methods This was a retrospective review of adult patients with positive blood cultures at a community health system in New Jersey. Patients with cultures performed using conventional methods (pre-BCID2) 7/1/2021-8/31/2021 were compared to patients with cultures performed using the BCID2 panel (post-BCID2) 7/1/2022-8/31/2022. Exclusion criteria was death within 72 hours, comfort care within 7 days of admission, organism determined to be a contaminant, culture results with a pathogen not on the BCID2 panel, transfer from an outside facility. The primary outcome was time to antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation. Secondary outcomes included time to culture identification, hospital length of stay (LOS), and duration of antimicrobial therapy. Results A total of 190 patients were included with 95 patients in each group. Time to de-escalation pre-BCID2 was 59.2 hours versus 35.3 hours post-BCID2 (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Time to culture identification pre-BCID2 was 53.1 hours versus 22.4 hours post-BCID2 (p &amp;lt; 0.001). LOS pre-BCID2 was 12.2 days versus 10.6 days post-BCID2 (p = 0.13). Duration of antimicrobial therapy was 20.2 days pre-BCID versus 18.4 days post-BCID2 (p = 0.29). Conclusion Addition of the BCID2 rapid diagnostic panel using a standard critical lab result notification process improved time to antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation by about 24 hours on average. In hospitals with limited stewardship resources, implementation of a rapid diagnostic blood test such as BCID2 without direct stewardship involvement is effective in improving time to antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation. 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.

Clinical outcomes associated with blood-culture contamination are not affected by utilization of a rapid blood-culture identification system.

Contaminated blood cultures result in extended hospital stays and extended durations of antibiotic therapy. Rapid molecular-based blood culture testing can speed positive culture detection and improve clinical outcomes, particularly when combined with an antimicrobial stewardship program. We investigated the impact of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) system on clinical outcomes associated with contaminated blood cultures. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving secondary data analysis at a single institution. In this before-and-after study, patients with contaminated blood cultures in the period before PCR BCID was implemented (ie, the pre-PCR period; n = 305) were compared to patients with contaminated blood cultures during the period after PCR BCID was implemented (ie, the post-PCR implementation period; n = 464). The primary exposure was PCR status and the main outcomes of the study were length of hospital stay and days of antibiotic therapy. We did not detect a significant difference in adjusted mean length of hospital stay before (10.8 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-11.9) and after (11.2 days; 95% CI, 10.2-12.3) the implementation of the rapid BCID panel in patients with contaminated blood cultures (P = .413). Likewise, adjusted mean days of antibiotic therapy between patients in pre-PCR group (5.1 days; 95% CI, 4.5-5.7) did not significantly differ from patients in post-PCR group (5.3 days; 95% CI, 4.8-5.9; P = .543). The introduction of a rapid PCR-based blood culture identification system did not improve clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic therapy, in patients with contaminated blood cultures.

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.

188. Opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship: Time to optimal therapy and vancomycin use in gram-positive and contaminated blood cultures before and after implementation of rapid blood culture diagnostic testing

Abstract Background Rapid molecular diagnostic tests improve time to organism identification and may expedite antimicrobial de-escalation. Through faster detection of contaminated samples, rapid blood culture identification (BCID) should also reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. BioFire FilmArray BCID was implemented in July 2019 at a community hospital. This study compared antimicrobial use for gram-positive blood cultures before and after BCID implementation to identify areas for further antimicrobial stewardship intervention. Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients at a 450-bed community hospital with gram-positive blood culture results between February and June 2018 and 2019 (pre-and post-BCID). Patients were excluded for polymicrobial bacteremia, pregnancy, or expiration/hospice status before blood culture positivity. The primary outcome was time to optimal therapy (TTOT) for bacteremia, defined as time to antimicrobial de-escalation, discontinuation, or result for untreated contaminated cultures. Time to organism identification, receipt of optimal therapy, and vancomycin duration were also evaluated, in addition to subgroup analysis of contaminated cultures (identified by microbiology comment or physician note). Results Of the 232 patients, median age was 70 years and 54.3% were male. Coagulase-negative staphylococci was most commonly isolated (n=104, 45%) and contamination rate was 53.4%. Median TTOT improved from 53.3 vs 28 hours, p&amp;lt; 0.001 in pre- vs post-groups, respectively, and optimal therapy selection increased from 83% to 93%, p=0.028. Median time to organism identification was 60.2 vs 23.5 hours, p&amp;lt; 0.001. Median duration for vancomycin (35.1 vs 25.2 hours, p=0.231) and overall antimicrobial duration did not differ between groups. Among contaminated blood cultures, TTOT improved (54 vs 27.3 hours, p&amp;lt; 0.001) and vancomycin median duration decreased (27.5 vs 16.6 hours, p=0.253). Conclusion Rapid BCID significantly improved TTOT, resulting in improved rates of optimal therapy and an observed reduced vancomycin duration. High rates of contaminated blood cultures identified opportunities for coordination with antimicrobial stewardship to reduce contamination rates and improve antimicrobial use. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

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.

BioFire FilmArray BCID2 versus VITEK-2 System in Determining Microbial Etiology and Antibiotic-Resistant Genes of Pathogens Recovered from Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections.

Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is among the most serious hospital acquired infections. Therefore, the rapid detection of the causative microorganism is of crucial importance to allow for the appropriate antimicrobial therapy. In the present study, we analyzed the clinical performance of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel in the identification of 33 microbial species and 10 antibiotic resistance genes in comparison to the VITEK-2 system. A total of 104 blood specimens were included. The FilmArray BCID2 results were concordant with the VITEK-2 system in 69/97 specimens (71.1%). Non-concordance was either due to the detection of more pathogens by the FilmArray BCID2 23/28 (82%) or microbial species were misidentified 5/28 (18%). Hence, in comparison to the VITEK-2 system, the FilmArray BCID2 panel showed an overall sensitivity of 75.8% (95% CI, 66-83%) and an overall specificity of 98% (95% CI, 97-98.8%) in detecting microbial species. For the resistance genes, the FilmArray BCID was able to detect the presence of blaCTX-M gene in 23 Gram-negative isolates, blaNDM and blaOXA-48- like genes in 14 and 13 isolates, respectively. The mecA and mecC genes were found in 23 Staphylococcus species, while mecA, mecC and MREJ genes were found in 4 Staphylococcus aureus isolates. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting resistance genes by the FilmArray BCID2 was 90% (95% CI, 81.4-95%) and 99.6% (95% CI, 99-100%), respectively. As concluded, the present study emphasizes the high sensitivity and specificity of the FilmArray BCID2 in the rapid and reliable detection of different bacteria and fungi from positive blood culture bottles, as well as the accurate detection of various antibiotic resistance markers.

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.

Clinical utility of the FilmArray blood culture identification 2 panel in identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood culture bottles

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality especially in intensive care units across the world and timely appropriate antimicrobial therapy is a corner stone in its treatment (i) To compare the time difference to diagnose BSIs between FABCID2 and identification and sensitivity by automated systems (ii) To analyse the clinical utility of the FABCID2 panel in positive blood samples among ICU patients.This was a prospective study done from July 2020 to August 2020 where consecutive thirty positive blood culture received from ICUs were processed for gram stain, culture and antimicrobial susceptibility along with performing PCR with BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification2 (FABCID2) Panel. Time line of positive blood culture from receipt to report generation at multiple points were captured along with impact of results in terms of changing antimicrobial therapy of the patients and outcome. : A total of 38 microorganisms were identified from 30 patients. In 70% (21/30) of patients, the result of FABCID2 and growth in culture matched completely, in 23% (7/30) they matched partially and in 6% they did not match. The match between genotypic markers in the assay and phenotypic susceptibility was 100%. FABCID 2 results prompted clinicians to change the antimicrobials prescribed to 33% of total patients (escalation was done in 23.3% of patients and de-escalation was done in 10%. Clinical utility of the FABCID2 Panel in Identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from Positive Blood Culture Bottles is significant which should be used in conjunction with conventional methods to impact patient outcome and antimicrobial stewardship program.

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