A Day Saved is a Life Saved: Direct Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing from Positively Flagged Blood Culture Bottles and their Concordance with the Routine Method.

Q3 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Infectious disorders drug targets Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.2174/0118715265280460240302165218
Alisha Aggarwal, Kumar S Abhishek, Vibhor Tak, Sukanya Mehrotra, Venkat Goutham Nag, Vidhi Jain
{"title":"A Day Saved is a Life Saved: Direct Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing from Positively Flagged Blood Culture Bottles and their Concordance with the Routine Method.","authors":"Alisha Aggarwal, Kumar S Abhishek, Vibhor Tak, Sukanya Mehrotra, Venkat Goutham Nag, Vidhi Jain","doi":"10.2174/0118715265280460240302165218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nSepsis is a major health problem worldwide and is associated with high morbidity and mortality with every hour delay in initiation of therapy. A conventional method of blood culture and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) takes around 48-72 hours. Empirical antibiotics need to be administered until the sensitivity report is made available. It has been estimated that 20-50% of the empirical antibiotics are inappropriate, resulting in prolonged hospital stays, adverse effects, and emergence of drug resistance. Additionally, this also puts an extra financial burden on both the patients and healthcare settings. Performing direct Antimicrobial Sensitivity Testing (dAST) is an important tool to reduce turn-around time (TAT) by at least 18-24 hours, thus reducing morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients.\n\n\nMETHODS\nDirect AST (dAST) was performed from the positively flagged blood culture bottles received between December, 2021 to May, 2022 from Intensive Care Units (ICUs) on MuellerHinton Agar (MHA) using four drops of withdrawn blood. dAST was performed for six drugs: Ceftriaxone-30 µg (CTR), Piperacillin/Tazobactam-100/10 µg (PIT), Meropenem-10 µg (MRP), Ciprofloxacin-5 µg (CIP), Aztreonam-30 µg (AT), and Colistin (CL). The zone of inhibition was interpreted as per CLSI M100 ed32, 2022 guidelines. A parallel conventional method was also performed to examine for categorical agreement and disagreement. Identification was carried out using MALDI-TOF MS from the colonies that appeared on the dAST plate on the subsequent day.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 162 positively flagged blood culture bottles were included in the study. The majority of the Gram-negative organisms were from Enterobacterales (n=109), followed by Acinetobacter spp. (n=28) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=25). Out of the 972 isolate-antimicrobial combinations, overall Categorical Agreement (CA) was seen in 936 (96.3%), whereas disagreement was observed in 36 with minor error (mE) in 21 (2.2%), major error (ME) in 7 (0.7%), and very major error (VME) in 8 (0.8%) when compared to the routine method. Categorical agreement (CA) of > 99% was seen in ceftriaxone (CTR) and ciprofloxacin (CIP). In comparison, the lowest CA was observed with meropenem (MRP) at 92%. Colistin dAST was performed using the E-strip method, and the result obtained was highly convincing, with an overall disagreement of only 1.2%.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nRapid dAST from positively flagged blood culture bottles proved to significantly reduce the TAT from the time of sample collection to the first availability of antimicrobial susceptibility report with excellent categorical agreement of > 95% using the conventional disc diffusion method. Results obtained were within the acceptance criteria set by U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines of > 90% categorical agreement for a new method. We were able to obtain excellent concordance for colistin using the E-strip method. Performing dAST not only saves a \"day\", but its proper implementation would save a \"life\".","PeriodicalId":13678,"journal":{"name":"Infectious disorders drug targets","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious disorders drug targets","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0118715265280460240302165218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Sepsis is a major health problem worldwide and is associated with high morbidity and mortality with every hour delay in initiation of therapy. A conventional method of blood culture and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) takes around 48-72 hours. Empirical antibiotics need to be administered until the sensitivity report is made available. It has been estimated that 20-50% of the empirical antibiotics are inappropriate, resulting in prolonged hospital stays, adverse effects, and emergence of drug resistance. Additionally, this also puts an extra financial burden on both the patients and healthcare settings. Performing direct Antimicrobial Sensitivity Testing (dAST) is an important tool to reduce turn-around time (TAT) by at least 18-24 hours, thus reducing morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. METHODS Direct AST (dAST) was performed from the positively flagged blood culture bottles received between December, 2021 to May, 2022 from Intensive Care Units (ICUs) on MuellerHinton Agar (MHA) using four drops of withdrawn blood. dAST was performed for six drugs: Ceftriaxone-30 µg (CTR), Piperacillin/Tazobactam-100/10 µg (PIT), Meropenem-10 µg (MRP), Ciprofloxacin-5 µg (CIP), Aztreonam-30 µg (AT), and Colistin (CL). The zone of inhibition was interpreted as per CLSI M100 ed32, 2022 guidelines. A parallel conventional method was also performed to examine for categorical agreement and disagreement. Identification was carried out using MALDI-TOF MS from the colonies that appeared on the dAST plate on the subsequent day. RESULTS A total of 162 positively flagged blood culture bottles were included in the study. The majority of the Gram-negative organisms were from Enterobacterales (n=109), followed by Acinetobacter spp. (n=28) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=25). Out of the 972 isolate-antimicrobial combinations, overall Categorical Agreement (CA) was seen in 936 (96.3%), whereas disagreement was observed in 36 with minor error (mE) in 21 (2.2%), major error (ME) in 7 (0.7%), and very major error (VME) in 8 (0.8%) when compared to the routine method. Categorical agreement (CA) of > 99% was seen in ceftriaxone (CTR) and ciprofloxacin (CIP). In comparison, the lowest CA was observed with meropenem (MRP) at 92%. Colistin dAST was performed using the E-strip method, and the result obtained was highly convincing, with an overall disagreement of only 1.2%. CONCLUSION Rapid dAST from positively flagged blood culture bottles proved to significantly reduce the TAT from the time of sample collection to the first availability of antimicrobial susceptibility report with excellent categorical agreement of > 95% using the conventional disc diffusion method. Results obtained were within the acceptance criteria set by U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines of > 90% categorical agreement for a new method. We were able to obtain excellent concordance for colistin using the E-strip method. Performing dAST not only saves a "day", but its proper implementation would save a "life".
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
救人一命胜造七级浮屠:从阳性标记血培养瓶直接进行抗菌药物敏感性检测及其与常规方法的一致性。
背景败血症是世界范围内的一个主要健康问题,每延迟一小时开始治疗,就会导致很高的发病率和死亡率。血液培养和抗菌药敏感性检测(AST)的传统方法大约需要 48-72 小时。在获得药敏报告之前,需要使用经验性抗生素。据估计,20%-50% 的经验性抗生素使用不当,导致住院时间延长、不良反应和耐药性的出现。此外,这也给患者和医疗机构带来了额外的经济负担。直接进行抗菌药物敏感性测试(dAST)是将周转时间(TAT)缩短至少 18-24 小时的重要工具,从而降低了重症患者的发病率和死亡率。方法对 2021 年 12 月至 2022 年 5 月期间从重症监护病房(ICU)收到的阳性标记血培养瓶进行了直接抗菌药物敏感性测试(dAST),使用抽取的四滴血液在穆勒欣顿琼脂(MHA)上进行测试:头孢曲松-30 µg (CTR)、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦-100/10 µg (PIT)、美罗培南-10 µg (MRP)、环丙沙星-5 µg (CIP)、氨曲南-30 µg (AT) 和秋水仙碱 (CL)。抑制区按照 CLSI M100 ed32, 2022 指南进行解释。还采用了平行常规方法来检查分类一致和不一致的情况。使用 MALDI-TOF MS 对第二天出现在 dAST 平板上的菌落进行鉴定。大多数革兰氏阴性菌来自肠杆菌科(109 个),其次是醋杆菌属(28 个)和铜绿假单胞菌(25 个)。在 972 个分离物-抗菌药物组合中,与常规方法相比,936 个组合(96.3%)总体分类一致(CA),36 个组合不一致,其中 21 个组合(2.2%)存在轻微误差(mE),7 个组合(0.7%)存在重大误差(ME),8 个组合(0.8%)存在极重大误差(VME)。头孢曲松(CTR)和环丙沙星(CIP)的分类一致性(CA)大于 99%。相比之下,美罗培南(MRP)的分类一致性最低,仅为 92%。结论事实证明,从采集样本到首次获得抗菌药物药敏报告的时间大大缩短,而且使用传统的盘式扩散法,分类一致率大于 95%。获得的结果符合美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)制定的新方法分类一致性大于 90% 的接受标准。我们使用 E-条带法检测可乐定的一致性非常好。使用 dAST 不仅能挽救 "一天",正确使用 dAST 还能挽救 "生命"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Infectious disorders drug targets
Infectious disorders drug targets Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Infectious Disorders - Drug Targets aims to cover all the latest and outstanding developments on the medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, molecular biology, genomics and biochemistry of contemporary molecular targets involved in infectious disorders e.g. disease specific proteins, receptors, enzymes, genes. Each issue of the journal contains a series of timely in-depth reviews written by leaders in the field covering a range of current topics on drug targets involved in infectious disorders. As the discovery, identification, characterization and validation of novel human drug targets for anti-infective drug discovery continues to grow, this journal will be essential reading for all pharmaceutical scientists involved in drug discovery and development.
期刊最新文献
Vigilance Needed in Treating a Child with Disseminated TB: A Case Report. Vitamin D and Mitochondrial Activity Preservation in COVID-19. Recombinant ACE2 - Opportunities and Challenges in COVID-19 Treatment. Outbreak and Management Strategies of Nipah Virus: A Scenario from the Southern Part of India. A Day Saved is a Life Saved: Direct Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing from Positively Flagged Blood Culture Bottles and their Concordance with the Routine Method.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1