Cargando…
2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections
BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic testing for the management of bloodstream infections has become paramount to improving patient outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to assess the differences between 2 FDA approved instruments. METHODS: Retrospective study from August 2018 to April 2019 at t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809742/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1854 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic testing for the management of bloodstream infections has become paramount to improving patient outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to assess the differences between 2 FDA approved instruments. METHODS: Retrospective study from August 2018 to April 2019 at the University of Maryland Medical Center. One positive blood culture from each patient was tested using the Verigene® blood culture Gram-positive (BC-GP) or Gram-negative (BC-GN) panels based on the Gram stain and then analyzed using the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Gram-positive (BCID-GP) or Gram-negative (BCID-GN) research-use-only panels and compared with culture results. RESULTS: The study consisted of 140 positive blood culture bottles. 14 bottles were excluded for a total of 55 GN and 71 GP bottles. Of the 55 GN bottles, 3 had 2 GN rods for a total of 58 GNRs. BCID-GN missed 1 P. aeruginosa, 2 S. maltophilia, and 1 E. coli for a 93% (53/57) positive agreement. The BCID-GN does not detect A. junii and therefore it was excluded. BC-GN did not identify 1 K. pneumoniae with a 98% (47/48) positive agreement. BC-GN does not include the detection of S. maltophilia (4), Serratia (4), Morganella (1), and B. fragilis (1)and these were excluded in the BC-GN analysis. CTX-M was the only resistant marker detected and both panels identified it correctly. 5 samples using the BCID-GN also detected Pan Gram-Positive; 3 grew GP organisms, the other 2 only grew E. coli. Of the 71 GP bottles, 3 had two GP bacteria totaling 74 GPs. BCID-GP missed 1 S. aureus, 1 invalid, and called an E. faecalis that was not identified by the reference method for a 99% (72/73) positive agreement. BC-GP does not detect Micrococcus (6) or E. gallinarum (1) and missed 1 S. mitis/oralis for a 99% (66/67) positive agreement. 18 samples were positive for mecA detected by both panels. 4 samples were vanA/B positive; 1 by BCID-GP was sensitive to vancomycin and not detected by BC-GP. BCID-GP detected 1 sample as Pan Gram-negative although a GNR was not detected. CONCLUSION: BothVerigene® and ePlex® GP and GN panels have a high percent positive agreement. Laboratories should take into consideration the epidemiology of their bloodstream infections when deciding on panels for the rapid detection of bloodstream infections. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
---|