Cargando…

Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections

BACKGROUND: Conventional blood cultures methods are associated with long turnaround times, preventing early treatment optimization in bloodstream infections. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel is a new multiplex PCR applied on positive blood cultures, reducing time to pathogen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peri, Anna Maria, Bauer, Michelle J., Bergh, Haakon, Butkiewicz, Dominika, Paterson, David L., Harris, Patrick NA.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9304729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35874050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09983
_version_ 1784752155849129984
author Peri, Anna Maria
Bauer, Michelle J.
Bergh, Haakon
Butkiewicz, Dominika
Paterson, David L.
Harris, Patrick NA.
author_facet Peri, Anna Maria
Bauer, Michelle J.
Bergh, Haakon
Butkiewicz, Dominika
Paterson, David L.
Harris, Patrick NA.
author_sort Peri, Anna Maria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Conventional blood cultures methods are associated with long turnaround times, preventing early treatment optimization in bloodstream infections. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel is a new multiplex PCR applied on positive blood cultures, reducing time to pathogen identification and resistant markers detection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study including positive blood cultures from Intensive Care Units and Emergency Departments and performed BCID2 in addition to conventional testing. Concordance between the two methods was assessed and BCID2 performance characteristics were evaluated. Resistance markers detected by BCID2 were confirmed by in-house PCR. Whole genome sequencing was performed in discordant cases. RESULTS: Among 60 monomicrobial blood cultures, BCID2 correctly identified 55/56 (91.7%) on-panel pathogens, showing an overall concordance of 98%. In 4/60 cases BCID2 did not detect any target and these all grew BCID2 off-panel bacteria. Only one discordant case was found. Sensitivity and specificity for Gram-positive bacteria on monomicrobial samples were 100% (95% CI 85.8–100%) and 100% (95% CI 90.3–100%) respectively, while for Gram-negatives 100% (95% CI 87.7–100) and 96.9% (95% CI 83.8–99.9%), respectively. Among two polymicrobial blood cultures, full concordance was observed in one case only. BCID2 identified antimicrobial resistance genes in 6/62 samples, all confirmed by in-house PCR (3 mecA/C S. epidermidis, 3 bla(CTX-M)E. coli). Estimated time to results gained using BCID2 as compared to conventional testing was 9.69 h (95% CI: 7.85–11.53). CONCLUSIONS: BCID2 showed good agreement with conventional methods. Studies to assess its clinical impact are warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9304729
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93047292022-07-23 Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections Peri, Anna Maria Bauer, Michelle J. Bergh, Haakon Butkiewicz, Dominika Paterson, David L. Harris, Patrick NA. Heliyon Research Article BACKGROUND: Conventional blood cultures methods are associated with long turnaround times, preventing early treatment optimization in bloodstream infections. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel is a new multiplex PCR applied on positive blood cultures, reducing time to pathogen identification and resistant markers detection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study including positive blood cultures from Intensive Care Units and Emergency Departments and performed BCID2 in addition to conventional testing. Concordance between the two methods was assessed and BCID2 performance characteristics were evaluated. Resistance markers detected by BCID2 were confirmed by in-house PCR. Whole genome sequencing was performed in discordant cases. RESULTS: Among 60 monomicrobial blood cultures, BCID2 correctly identified 55/56 (91.7%) on-panel pathogens, showing an overall concordance of 98%. In 4/60 cases BCID2 did not detect any target and these all grew BCID2 off-panel bacteria. Only one discordant case was found. Sensitivity and specificity for Gram-positive bacteria on monomicrobial samples were 100% (95% CI 85.8–100%) and 100% (95% CI 90.3–100%) respectively, while for Gram-negatives 100% (95% CI 87.7–100) and 96.9% (95% CI 83.8–99.9%), respectively. Among two polymicrobial blood cultures, full concordance was observed in one case only. BCID2 identified antimicrobial resistance genes in 6/62 samples, all confirmed by in-house PCR (3 mecA/C S. epidermidis, 3 bla(CTX-M)E. coli). Estimated time to results gained using BCID2 as compared to conventional testing was 9.69 h (95% CI: 7.85–11.53). CONCLUSIONS: BCID2 showed good agreement with conventional methods. Studies to assess its clinical impact are warranted. Elsevier 2022-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9304729/ /pubmed/35874050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09983 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Peri, Anna Maria
Bauer, Michelle J.
Bergh, Haakon
Butkiewicz, Dominika
Paterson, David L.
Harris, Patrick NA.
Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
title Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
title_full Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
title_fullStr Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
title_full_unstemmed Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
title_short Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
title_sort performance of the biofire blood culture identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9304729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35874050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09983
work_keys_str_mv AT periannamaria performanceofthebiofirebloodcultureidentification2panelforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfections
AT bauermichellej performanceofthebiofirebloodcultureidentification2panelforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfections
AT berghhaakon performanceofthebiofirebloodcultureidentification2panelforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfections
AT butkiewiczdominika performanceofthebiofirebloodcultureidentification2panelforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfections
AT patersondavidl performanceofthebiofirebloodcultureidentification2panelforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfections
AT harrispatrickna performanceofthebiofirebloodcultureidentification2panelforthediagnosisofbloodstreaminfections