Cargando…
Evaluation of the Potential Impact of a Multiplex Rapid Diagnostic Panel in Critically Ill Patients With Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia
Background Rapid diagnostic tools have emerged as valuable assets assisting clinicians in decision-making regarding patient management in the hospital setting. Our study sought to identify the potential impact of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel (FP Panel) (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8887693/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35251792 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21716 |
Sumario: | Background Rapid diagnostic tools have emerged as valuable assets assisting clinicians in decision-making regarding patient management in the hospital setting. Our study sought to identify the potential impact of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel (FP Panel) (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). Methods Respiratory samples obtained by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or tracheal aspiration (TA) from ICU patients with a diagnosis of HAP were tested by the FP panel in addition to routine bacterial cultures. In addition, the electronic health records of these patients were reviewed to determine what potential changes in antimicrobial therapy could have been implemented if the panel results were known to the treatment team in real-time. A cost analysis was also performed incorporating the cost of the pneumonia panel and the savings associated with the potential decrease of antibiotic use and avoidance of the rapid viral diagnostic panel. Results Fifty-six patients met the study criteria. The FP panel results could have prompted a change in therapy in 36 (64.3%) patients, with an anticipated mean reduction in time to optimized therapy of approximately 51 hours. In addition, the panel identified three cases where antimicrobials should have been altered because patients were not receiving empiric therapy with activity against the causative pathogen and 34 opportunities for antibiotic de-escalation. The cost analysis calculated an additional cost of $10 per patient associated with using the FP panel. Conclusions The FP panel could have prompted a change in therapy in about two-thirds of patients studied. Its potential benefits include a more rapid time to optimized therapy, reduced exposure to and cost of broad-spectrum antimicrobials, and reduced cost of other rapid diagnostic tests. |
---|