Evaluation of the effect of BioFire FilmArray nested multiplex polymerase chain reaction method on rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial stewardship in sepsis.
Tuba Tatlı Kış, Can Biçmen, Suleyman Yıldırım, Ozlem Ediboğlu, Fatma Sebnem Yıldız, Ayriz Tuba Gunduz, Ferhat Demirci, Cenk Kıraklı
{"title":"Evaluation of the effect of BioFire FilmArray nested multiplex polymerase chain reaction method on rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial stewardship in sepsis.","authors":"Tuba Tatlı Kış, Can Biçmen, Suleyman Yıldırım, Ozlem Ediboğlu, Fatma Sebnem Yıldız, Ayriz Tuba Gunduz, Ferhat Demirci, Cenk Kıraklı","doi":"10.1590/1806-9282.20241038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel on agent identification and antimicrobial stewardship in patients with a critical state of sepsis secondary to bloodstream infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed as a prospective observational study. Patients who developed sepsis and septic shock secondary to bloodstream infection in the intensive care unit were included in the study. Concordance in both monomicrobial and polymicrobial results of Blood Culture Identification 2 panel and conventional blood culture, test result times, and antibiotherapy changes according to Blood Culture Identification 2 panel results were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In monomicrobial samples, sensitivity and specificity were 97.1% (95%CI 84.6-99.3) and 100% (95%CI 66.3-100), respectively, for gram-negative pathogens and 85.7% (95%CI 42.1-99.6) and 100% (95%CI 90.2-100), respectively, for gram-positive pathogens. In polymicrobial samples, Blood Culture Identification 2 panel results were 79% in concordance with conventional blood culture results. In this study, when the final turnaround time of the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel was compared with culture results, the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel was on average 1 day, 5 h, and 35 min faster than the culture (p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Blood Culture Identification 2 testing is a reliable tool for rapid pathogen and antimicrobial susceptibility detection in critically ill sepsis patients. The use of the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel in patients with sepsis and/or septic shock, where the transition to targeted antibiotherapy is critical, may improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94194,"journal":{"name":"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)","volume":"70 12","pages":"e20241038"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20241038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel on agent identification and antimicrobial stewardship in patients with a critical state of sepsis secondary to bloodstream infection.
Methods: This study was designed as a prospective observational study. Patients who developed sepsis and septic shock secondary to bloodstream infection in the intensive care unit were included in the study. Concordance in both monomicrobial and polymicrobial results of Blood Culture Identification 2 panel and conventional blood culture, test result times, and antibiotherapy changes according to Blood Culture Identification 2 panel results were evaluated.
Results: In monomicrobial samples, sensitivity and specificity were 97.1% (95%CI 84.6-99.3) and 100% (95%CI 66.3-100), respectively, for gram-negative pathogens and 85.7% (95%CI 42.1-99.6) and 100% (95%CI 90.2-100), respectively, for gram-positive pathogens. In polymicrobial samples, Blood Culture Identification 2 panel results were 79% in concordance with conventional blood culture results. In this study, when the final turnaround time of the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel was compared with culture results, the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel was on average 1 day, 5 h, and 35 min faster than the culture (p<0.01).
Conclusion: Blood Culture Identification 2 testing is a reliable tool for rapid pathogen and antimicrobial susceptibility detection in critically ill sepsis patients. The use of the Blood Culture Identification 2 panel in patients with sepsis and/or septic shock, where the transition to targeted antibiotherapy is critical, may improve patient outcomes.