Cargando…
Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics
Blood stream infections pose a major challenge for clinicians as the immediate application of an appropriate antibiotic treatment is the vital factor to safe the patients' lives. This preliminary study compares three different systems promising fast pathogen identification and susceptibility te...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8252793/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33788299 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lam.13481 |
_version_ | 1783717376563347456 |
---|---|
author | Knabl, L. Huber, S. Lass‐Flörl, C. Fuchs, S. |
author_facet | Knabl, L. Huber, S. Lass‐Flörl, C. Fuchs, S. |
author_sort | Knabl, L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Blood stream infections pose a major challenge for clinicians as the immediate application of an appropriate antibiotic treatment is the vital factor to safe the patients' lives. This preliminary study compares three different systems promising fast pathogen identification and susceptibility testing in comparison to conventional blood culture (BC): (i) the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing protocol according to EUCAST in combination with the Sepsityper(®) kit (sRAST), (ii) the direct inoculation method on the VITEK(®)2 system (dVIT) and (iii) testing with the Accelerate Pheno(®) system (AccPh). All methods were assessed in terms of accuracy, time to result and usability. Twenty‐three BC samples obtained from patients suffering from proven sepsis were analysed in detail. Pathogen identification was successful in 95·6, 91·3 and 91·3% in sRAST, dVIT and AccPh, respectively. Categorical agreement in antimicrobial susceptibility testing was 89·5, 96 and 96·6%, respectively. Time to result from sample entry to reporting ranged from an average of 4·6 h for sRAST and 6·9 h for AccPh to 10·6 h for dVIT. These results imply a significant shortening of reporting times at considerably high agreement rates for these new diagnostic approaches. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8252793 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82527932021-07-12 Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics Knabl, L. Huber, S. Lass‐Flörl, C. Fuchs, S. Lett Appl Microbiol Editor's Choice Blood stream infections pose a major challenge for clinicians as the immediate application of an appropriate antibiotic treatment is the vital factor to safe the patients' lives. This preliminary study compares three different systems promising fast pathogen identification and susceptibility testing in comparison to conventional blood culture (BC): (i) the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing protocol according to EUCAST in combination with the Sepsityper(®) kit (sRAST), (ii) the direct inoculation method on the VITEK(®)2 system (dVIT) and (iii) testing with the Accelerate Pheno(®) system (AccPh). All methods were assessed in terms of accuracy, time to result and usability. Twenty‐three BC samples obtained from patients suffering from proven sepsis were analysed in detail. Pathogen identification was successful in 95·6, 91·3 and 91·3% in sRAST, dVIT and AccPh, respectively. Categorical agreement in antimicrobial susceptibility testing was 89·5, 96 and 96·6%, respectively. Time to result from sample entry to reporting ranged from an average of 4·6 h for sRAST and 6·9 h for AccPh to 10·6 h for dVIT. These results imply a significant shortening of reporting times at considerably high agreement rates for these new diagnostic approaches. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-06 2021-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8252793/ /pubmed/33788299 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lam.13481 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Letters in Applied Microbiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for Applied Microbiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Editor's Choice Knabl, L. Huber, S. Lass‐Flörl, C. Fuchs, S. Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
title | Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
title_full | Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
title_fullStr | Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
title_short | Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
title_sort | comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics |
topic | Editor's Choice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8252793/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33788299 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lam.13481 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT knabll comparisonofnovelapproachesforexpeditedpathogenidentificationandantimicrobialsusceptibilitytestingagainstroutinebloodculturediagnostics AT hubers comparisonofnovelapproachesforexpeditedpathogenidentificationandantimicrobialsusceptibilitytestingagainstroutinebloodculturediagnostics AT lassflorlc comparisonofnovelapproachesforexpeditedpathogenidentificationandantimicrobialsusceptibilitytestingagainstroutinebloodculturediagnostics AT fuchss comparisonofnovelapproachesforexpeditedpathogenidentificationandantimicrobialsusceptibilitytestingagainstroutinebloodculturediagnostics |