Cargando…

160. Could Reducing Time to Bacterial Identification From Positive Blood Cultures Improve Outcomes in Bacteremic Patients?

BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with septic shock is dependent on the timing of effective antibiotic administration. The initial notification by the microbiology lab of a positive blood culture is a key factor in improving patient outcomes. It can take >24 hours to definitively identify bacteria...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Forbes, Jessica D, Haj, Reem, Taggart, Linda R, Fattouh, Ramzi, Leung, Elizabeth, Friedrich, Jan, Matukas, Larissa M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809781/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.235
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with septic shock is dependent on the timing of effective antibiotic administration. The initial notification by the microbiology lab of a positive blood culture is a key factor in improving patient outcomes. It can take >24 hours to definitively identify bacteria from positive blood cultures. Accordingly, we employed rapid organism identification and studied the impact of this on patient management from a quality improvement perspective. METHODS: Rapid organism identification was performed for bacteremic patients admitted to an ICU at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, ON, by creating a pellet from positive blood culture bottles using a lysis centrifugation technique. MALDI-TOF was then used to obtain an organism identification. The microbiology lab verbally notified the ward clerk of the identification and surveys were conducted with treating physicians within 24–48 hours to evaluate the downstream impact of the rapid identification including changes to antibiotics, diagnostic testing, central line management and requests for specialty consultations. RESULTS: Between January 28 and April 28, 2019, 17 rapid blood culture results were included for study. When asked how physicians received the result, in 7 cases the physician did not remember; other responses included microbiology report (2), nurse (2), pharmacist (1), antimicrobial stewardship or lab (1), on-call team (1) and residents (1). Antibiotics were adjusted in 13 patients; 3 of which may have changed antibiotics for reasons other than the organism identification. Reasons for not changing therapy include: appropriate empiric treatment, likely contaminants, or physician not being notified of the result. In 5 cases, all antibiotics were discontinued, in another 2 cases the antibiotics were broadened and a further 5 narrowed to cover the organism; the remaining 5 continued the same empiric therapy. Repeat blood cultures were obtained for 5 cases, follow-up imaging in 5 cases and lines were changed/removed in 5 cases. Consultation was requested for 7 cases. CONCLUSION: Based on preliminary data, rapid organism identification shows promise of improved patient management with line removal and antibiotics adjustments occurring 1 day sooner with rapid results. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.