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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knabl, L., Huber, S., Lass‐Flörl, C., Fuchs, S.
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