Suppr超能文献

BioFire血培养鉴定2检测板在血流感染诊断中的性能

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

作者信息

Peri Anna Maria, Bauer Michelle J, Bergh Haakon, Butkiewicz Dominika, Paterson David L, Harris Patrick Na

机构信息

University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, Brisbane City, QLD, 4029, Australia.

Central Microbiology, Pathology Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane City, QLD, 4029, Australia.

出版信息

Heliyon. 2022 Jul 19;8(7):e09983. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09983. eCollection 2022 Jul.

Abstract

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 , 3 . 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.

摘要

背景

传统血培养方法周转时间长,不利于血流感染的早期治疗优化。BioFire血培养鉴定2(BCID2)检测板是一种应用于阳性血培养的新型多重PCR技术,可缩短病原体鉴定和耐药标志物检测时间。

方法

我们进行了一项前瞻性观察性研究,纳入重症监护病房和急诊科的阳性血培养样本,除常规检测外还进行了BCID2检测。评估两种方法之间的一致性,并评价BCID2的性能特征。BCID2检测到的耐药标志物通过内部PCR进行确认。对不一致的病例进行全基因组测序。

结果

在60份单一微生物血培养样本中,BCID2正确鉴定出55/56(91.7%)种检测板上的病原体,总体一致性为98%。在4/60例病例中,BCID2未检测到任何目标病原体,这些样本均培养出BCID2检测板外的细菌。仅发现1例不一致病例。单一微生物样本中革兰氏阳性菌的敏感性和特异性分别为100%(95%CI:85.8-100%)和100%(95%CI:90.3-100%),革兰氏阴性菌分别为100%(95%CI:87.7-100)和96.9%(95%CI:83.8-99.9%)。在2份多微生物血培养样本中,仅1例观察到完全一致。BCID2在62份样本中鉴定出抗菌耐药基因,所有结果均经内部PCR确认(3份,3份)。与传统检测相比,使用BCID2获得结果的估计时间为9.69小时(95%CI:7.85-11.53)。

结论

BCID2与传统方法显示出良好的一致性。有必要开展研究评估其临床影响。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients.重症患者抗生素处方指南
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2024 Aug;28(Suppl 2):S104-S216. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24677. Epub 2024 Aug 10.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验