Cargando…

643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients

BACKGROUND: The identification of causative pathogens in pneumonia can be challenging, and conventional culture methods can take up to 72 hours. However, rapid microbiologic tests identify organisms within hours. The Biofire®Filmarray ((bioMérieux, North Carolina) Pneumonia Panel was recently approv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abu Sitta, Emad, Hubbard, Nicole, Suleyman, Geehan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810918/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.711
_version_ 1783462352441573376
author Abu Sitta, Emad
Hubbard, Nicole
Suleyman, Geehan
author_facet Abu Sitta, Emad
Hubbard, Nicole
Suleyman, Geehan
author_sort Abu Sitta, Emad
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The identification of causative pathogens in pneumonia can be challenging, and conventional culture methods can take up to 72 hours. However, rapid microbiologic tests identify organisms within hours. The Biofire®Filmarray ((bioMérieux, North Carolina) Pneumonia Panel was recently approved by the FDA. The multiplex PCR system identifies 33 targets from sputum and bronchoalveolar (BAL) samples, which include 18 bacteria, 8 viruses, and 7 antibiotic resistance genes. The purpose is to compare the panel to routine culture methods for the detection of respiratory pathogens in patients with pneumonia in a 794-bed teaching hospital in northwest Ohio. METHODS: We retrospectively screened all hospitalized intensive care unit patients who met clinical and radiological criteria of pneumonia using electronic medical records between November 2018 and February 2019. Adult patients who had respiratory cultures collected within 7 days were included. Repeat specimens were excluded. Routine cultures were performed using the laboratory’s standard procedure, and Pneumonia Panel testing was performed according to manufacturer instructions. RESULTS: Fifty-nine respiratory or 13 BAL and 46 sputum specimens were evaluated. There was no discrepancy between culture and PCR in 63% (37/59) samples. One (8%) BAL and 10 (22%) sputum specimens had additional pathogens detected by PCR. There was a discrepancy between culture and PCR in four (31%) BAL and seven (15%) sputum samples. The largest discrepancy was noted amongst Serratia marcescens (4/59 or 7%) and Haemophilus influenzae (6/59 or 10%) species. Only one sputum culture had Legionella detected by PCR. Additionally, 17 specimens had a virus detected either alone or with another bacterial pathogen by PCR. For the resistance genes, KPC was detected by PCR but not by Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method (mCIM) test. The mecA gene was detected in six of seven (86%) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates. CTX-M was detected in Serratia and Klebsiella pneunomiae in two samples; however, the organisms were not isolated in culture. CONCLUSION: The Pneumonia Panel can identify additional bacteria that did not grow in culture. This panel can rapidly identify pathogens and potentially reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6810918
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68109182019-10-28 643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients Abu Sitta, Emad Hubbard, Nicole Suleyman, Geehan Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: The identification of causative pathogens in pneumonia can be challenging, and conventional culture methods can take up to 72 hours. However, rapid microbiologic tests identify organisms within hours. The Biofire®Filmarray ((bioMérieux, North Carolina) Pneumonia Panel was recently approved by the FDA. The multiplex PCR system identifies 33 targets from sputum and bronchoalveolar (BAL) samples, which include 18 bacteria, 8 viruses, and 7 antibiotic resistance genes. The purpose is to compare the panel to routine culture methods for the detection of respiratory pathogens in patients with pneumonia in a 794-bed teaching hospital in northwest Ohio. METHODS: We retrospectively screened all hospitalized intensive care unit patients who met clinical and radiological criteria of pneumonia using electronic medical records between November 2018 and February 2019. Adult patients who had respiratory cultures collected within 7 days were included. Repeat specimens were excluded. Routine cultures were performed using the laboratory’s standard procedure, and Pneumonia Panel testing was performed according to manufacturer instructions. RESULTS: Fifty-nine respiratory or 13 BAL and 46 sputum specimens were evaluated. There was no discrepancy between culture and PCR in 63% (37/59) samples. One (8%) BAL and 10 (22%) sputum specimens had additional pathogens detected by PCR. There was a discrepancy between culture and PCR in four (31%) BAL and seven (15%) sputum samples. The largest discrepancy was noted amongst Serratia marcescens (4/59 or 7%) and Haemophilus influenzae (6/59 or 10%) species. Only one sputum culture had Legionella detected by PCR. Additionally, 17 specimens had a virus detected either alone or with another bacterial pathogen by PCR. For the resistance genes, KPC was detected by PCR but not by Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method (mCIM) test. The mecA gene was detected in six of seven (86%) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates. CTX-M was detected in Serratia and Klebsiella pneunomiae in two samples; however, the organisms were not isolated in culture. CONCLUSION: The Pneumonia Panel can identify additional bacteria that did not grow in culture. This panel can rapidly identify pathogens and potentially reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6810918/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.711 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
Abu Sitta, Emad
Hubbard, Nicole
Suleyman, Geehan
643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients
title 643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients
title_full 643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients
title_fullStr 643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients
title_full_unstemmed 643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients
title_short 643. Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Routine Culture for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Pneumonia Patients
title_sort 643. comparison of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (pcr) and routine culture for the detection of respiratory pathogens in pneumonia patients
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810918/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.711
work_keys_str_mv AT abusittaemad 643comparisonofmultiplexpolymerasechainreactionpcrandroutinecultureforthedetectionofrespiratorypathogensinpneumoniapatients
AT hubbardnicole 643comparisonofmultiplexpolymerasechainreactionpcrandroutinecultureforthedetectionofrespiratorypathogensinpneumoniapatients
AT suleymangeehan 643comparisonofmultiplexpolymerasechainreactionpcrandroutinecultureforthedetectionofrespiratorypathogensinpneumoniapatients