Giulia De Angelis1, Brunella Posteraro2, Elena De Carolis1, Giulia Menchinelli1, Francesco Franceschi3, Mario Tumbarello4, Gennaro De Pascale5, Teresa Spanu1, Maurizio Sanguinetti1. 1. Institute of Microbiology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 2. Institute of Public Health (Section of Hygiene), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 4. Institute of Infectious Diseases, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 5. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the magnetic resonance-based T2Bacteria Panel assay for direct detection of ESKAPEc (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli) pathogens in blood samples of patients with suspected bloodstream infection (BSI). Patients and methods: Adult patients admitted to the Emergency Medicine Department, Infectious Diseases Unit and ICU of a large tertiary-care hospital were included if they had a blood culture (BC) ordered concomitantly with a whole-blood sample for T2Bacteria testing. Results were compared with those of BC and other clinically relevant information. Results: A total of 140 samples from 129 BSI patients were studied. Single bacteria were detected in 15.7% (22/140) and 12.1% (17/140), and multiple bacteria in 2.9% (4/140) and 1.4% (2/140), of samples tested by T2Bacteria and BC, respectively. With respect to the six target (ESKAPEc) species, overall sensitivity and specificity of T2Bacteria across all detection channels in comparison with BC were 83.3% and 97.6%, respectively; these values increased to 89.5% and 98.4%, respectively, when a true-infection criterion (i.e. the same microorganism detected only by T2Bacteria was cultured from another sample type reflecting the source of infection) was used as the comparator. There were 808 T2Bacteria detection results across 112 samples, with concordant negative results, yielding a negative predictive value of 99.8%. The mean time to negative result was 6.1 ± 1.5 h, whereas the mean time to detection/species identification was 5.5 ± 1.4 h. Conclusions: The T2Bacteria Panel assay has the potential to provide accurate and timely diagnosis of ESKAPEc bacteraemia, which might support the direct therapeutic management of BSI patients.
Objectives: To evaluate the magnetic resonance-based T2Bacteria Panel assay for direct detection of ESKAPEc (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli) pathogens in blood samples of patients with suspected bloodstream infection (BSI). Patients and methods: Adult patients admitted to the Emergency Medicine Department, Infectious Diseases Unit and ICU of a large tertiary-care hospital were included if they had a blood culture (BC) ordered concomitantly with a whole-blood sample for T2Bacteria testing. Results were compared with those of BC and other clinically relevant information. Results: A total of 140 samples from 129 BSI patients were studied. Single bacteria were detected in 15.7% (22/140) and 12.1% (17/140), and multiple bacteria in 2.9% (4/140) and 1.4% (2/140), of samples tested by T2Bacteria and BC, respectively. With respect to the six target (ESKAPEc) species, overall sensitivity and specificity of T2Bacteria across all detection channels in comparison with BC were 83.3% and 97.6%, respectively; these values increased to 89.5% and 98.4%, respectively, when a true-infection criterion (i.e. the same microorganism detected only by T2Bacteria was cultured from another sample type reflecting the source of infection) was used as the comparator. There were 808 T2Bacteria detection results across 112 samples, with concordant negative results, yielding a negative predictive value of 99.8%. The mean time to negative result was 6.1 ± 1.5 h, whereas the mean time to detection/species identification was 5.5 ± 1.4 h. Conclusions: The T2Bacteria Panel assay has the potential to provide accurate and timely diagnosis of ESKAPEc bacteraemia, which might support the direct therapeutic management of BSI patients.
Authors: Roby P Bhattacharyya; Mark Walker; Rich Boykin; Sophie S Son; Jamin Liu; Austin C Hachey; Peijun Ma; Lidan Wu; Kyungyong Choi; Kaelyn C Cummins; Maura Benson; Jennifer Skerry; Hyunryul Ryu; Sharon Y Wong; Marcia B Goldberg; Jongyoon Han; Virginia M Pierce; Lisa A Cosimi; Noam Shoresh; Jonathan Livny; Joseph Beechem; Deborah T Hung Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Kirsten van de Groep; Martine P Bos; Meri R J Varkila; Paul H M Savelkoul; David S Y Ong; Lennie P G Derde; Nicole P Juffermans; Tom van der Poll; Marc J M Bonten; Olaf L Cremer Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Paige A Melling; Michael J Noto; Todd W Rice; Matthew W Semler; Joanna L Stollings Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 3.154