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 |
_version_ | 1783462070942957568 |
---|---|
author | Johnson, J Kristie Kpadeh-Rogers, Zegbeh Paszkiewicz, Gwen Claeys, Kimberly C |
author_facet | Johnson, J Kristie Kpadeh-Rogers, Zegbeh Paszkiewicz, Gwen Claeys, Kimberly C |
author_sort | Johnson, J Kristie |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6809742 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68097422019-10-28 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections Johnson, J Kristie Kpadeh-Rogers, Zegbeh Paszkiewicz, Gwen Claeys, Kimberly C Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts 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. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6809742/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1854 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Johnson, J Kristie Kpadeh-Rogers, Zegbeh Paszkiewicz, Gwen Claeys, Kimberly C 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections |
title | 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections |
title_full | 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections |
title_fullStr | 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections |
title_full_unstemmed | 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections |
title_short | 2174. Comparison of the Verigene® and the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections |
title_sort | 2174. comparison of the verigene® and the eplex® blood culture identification panels for gram-positive and gram-negative bloodstream infections |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809742/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1854 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johnsonjkristie 2174comparisonoftheverigeneandtheeplexbloodcultureidentificationpanelsforgrampositiveandgramnegativebloodstreaminfections AT kpadehrogerszegbeh 2174comparisonoftheverigeneandtheeplexbloodcultureidentificationpanelsforgrampositiveandgramnegativebloodstreaminfections AT paszkiewiczgwen 2174comparisonoftheverigeneandtheeplexbloodcultureidentificationpanelsforgrampositiveandgramnegativebloodstreaminfections AT claeyskimberlyc 2174comparisonoftheverigeneandtheeplexbloodcultureidentificationpanelsforgrampositiveandgramnegativebloodstreaminfections |