Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:12:59.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical outcomes associated with blood-culture contamination are not affected by utilization of a rapid blood-culture identification system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2023

Sidra Liaquat Khan
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Gleb Haynatzki
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Sharon J. Medcalf
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Mark E. Rupp*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
*
Author for correspondence: Mark E. Rupp, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Contaminated blood cultures result in extended hospital stays and extended durations of antibiotic therapy. Rapid molecular-based blood culture testing can speed positive culture detection and improve clinical outcomes, particularly when combined with an antimicrobial stewardship program. We investigated the impact of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) system on clinical outcomes associated with contaminated blood cultures.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving secondary data analysis at a single institution. In this before-and-after study, patients with contaminated blood cultures in the period before PCR BCID was implemented (ie, the pre-PCR period; n = 305) were compared to patients with contaminated blood cultures during the period after PCR BCID was implemented (ie, the post-PCR implementation period; n = 464). The primary exposure was PCR status and the main outcomes of the study were length of hospital stay and days of antibiotic therapy.

Results:

We did not detect a significant difference in adjusted mean length of hospital stay before (10.8 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8–11.9) and after (11.2 days; 95% CI, 10.2–12.3) the implementation of the rapid BCID panel in patients with contaminated blood cultures (P = .413). Likewise, adjusted mean days of antibiotic therapy between patients in pre-PCR group (5.1 days; 95% CI, 4.5–5.7) did not significantly differ from patients in post-PCR group (5.3 days; 95% CI, 4.8–5.9; P = .543).

Conclusion:

The introduction of a rapid PCR-based blood culture identification system did not improve clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic therapy, in patients with contaminated blood cultures.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. Reference Adrie, Garrouste-Orgeas and Ibn Essaied1,Reference Diekema, Beekmann, Chapin, Morel, Munson and Doern2 Early recognition of the causative agent and appropriate antibiotic therapy are needed for adequate management of bloodstream infections. Reference Adrie, Garrouste-Orgeas and Ibn Essaied1Reference Opota, Croxatto, Prod’hom and Greub4 However, 0.6%–6% of all blood cultures in the United States are contaminated with commensal skin organisms. Reference Pien, Sundaram and Raoof5Reference Doern, Carroll and Diekema7 Contamination of blood cultures often results in extended hospital stay and unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Reference Hall and Lyman6Reference Klucher, Davis, Lakkad, Painter and Dare8

The conventional method of identifying microorganisms in blood cultures and providing antimicrobial susceptibility information can take up to 48–72 hours. Reference Gonzalez, Chao and Pettengill9 Recently, several new approaches have been explored for early identification of microorganisms and detection of resistance genes in blood-culture specimens. Reference Opota, Croxatto, Prod’hom and Greub4,Reference Gonzalez, Chao and Pettengill9 Rapid comprehensive panel-based molecular assays using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, such as the FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) panel (bioMérieux, Salt Lake City, UT), 10 can detect many major bloodstream pathogens and selected antimicrobial resistance genes in positive blood cultures. Reference Blaschke, Heyrend and Byington11Reference Ledeboer, Lopansri and Dhiman13 Because clinicians receive PCR blood culture testing results within a few hours of a blood culture yielding microbial growth, some data suggest that using rapid diagnostic testing, particularly when coupled with robust antimicrobial stewardship efforts, can decrease mortality, length of hospital stay, duration of antibiotic therapy, as well as, the economic burden associated with bloodstream infections. Reference Pence14,Reference Buehler, Madison and Snyder15

However, there is limited and conflicting evidence on the impact of rapid molecular diagnostic testing on clinical outcomes of contaminated blood cultures. Pardo et al Reference Pardo, Klinker, Borgert, Butler, Giglio and Rand16 demonstrated that using PCR to detect blood pathogens led to a statistically significant shorter duration of hospital stay (2.3 days) compared to the control group before the PCR intervention (2.9 days; P = .008) in patients who were discharged within 6 days of a contaminated blood-culture result. Reference Pardo, Klinker, Borgert, Butler, Giglio and Rand16 However, they reported that the duration of antibiotic therapy did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. When comparing periods before and after PCR was implemented, MacVane et al Reference MacVane, Raux and Smith17 found the median length of hospital stay to be 8 days versus 7 days (P = .75) and antibiotic therapy duration with vancomycin to be 1.3 versus 1.7 days (P = .28) in patients with contaminated blood cultures. Reference MacVane, Raux and Smith17 Cattoir et al Reference Cattoir, Merabet and Djibo18 analyzed 154 episodes of contaminated blood cultures and reported that 17% of those in the PCR testing group were given unnecessary antibiotics compared to 10% patients in the conventional testing group (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.62–5.12; P = .237).

Insufficient data are available on the impact of rapid blood culture testing on clinical outcomes of patients with contaminated blood cultures. Therefore, we assessed the impact of rapid blood culture testing on the length of hospital stay (LOS) and the duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with contaminated blood cultures.

Methods

Study setting

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving secondary analysis of data extracted from hospital medical records at a single institution. This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Review Board. The study population included all adult patients who had blood culture(s) during an admission. The multiplex PCR FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) panel, was introduced at our institution in November 2013. 10 Following introduction of the BCID, clinicians were alerted of a positive blood culture and Gram-stain characteristics by telephone, which was followed by updated BCID information via the electronic medical record. Electronic medical records of patients with a date of admission between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, were included in pre-PCR group and patients with a date of admission between June 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, were included in the post-PCR group. Data were not available for July 2012 of the pre-PCR period.

Hospital admissions of patients aged ≥18 years and those who fit the study definition of a contaminated blood-culture episode were included. Participants who were discharged from the emergency department were not included; however, patients who were initially treated in the emergency department and subsequently admitted to the hospital were included. Only the first admission was included in the study sample if a patient had >1 eligible admission during the study period.

Study definitions

Contaminated blood culture. A blood culture was considered contaminated if skin-residing organism(s) were identified in 1 of the 2 (or more) blood-culture sets. The skin-residing organisms include coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Cutibacterium acnes, Micrococcus spp, viridians group streptococci (VGS), Corynebacterium spp, and Bacillus spp. Patients with only a single blood culture obtained were excluded.

Contaminated episode

A patient admission was categorized as a contaminated episode if the first ordered blood culture was reported as contaminated (based on the aforementioned definition of contaminated blood culture) and any subsequent blood culture was negative during the same admission.

Study size

The pre-PCR group with 305 contaminated blood-culture episodes and the post-PCR group with 464 contaminated blood culture episodes comprised the final analytical sample (n = 769) of the study.

Variables

The primary independent variable was PCR status (before or after) depending on whether PCR was used to detect pathogens in blood. To assess the potential impact of sociodemographic variables on outcomes, certain variables were included in the analysis. These variables were age categorized in quartiles (<50 years, 50–61 years, 62–73 years, >73 years), sex (male or female), race (white, black, or other), body mass index (BMI; kg/m2), smoking status (smoker or nonsmoker), alcohol status (drinks alcohol or does not drink alcohol), marital status (single, married), and medical insurance (insured or uninsured). We also controlled for underlying diseases that have been shown to affect duration of hospitalization and antibiotic therapy in patients with contaminated blood cultures. These underlying diseases were extracted from International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes listed in the electronic medical records of each patient admission and included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (yes or no), chronic kidney disease (yes or no), liver cirrhosis (yes or no), and diabetes mellitus (yes or no). Some hospitalization-related variables, such as stay in intensive care unit (ICU) during admission (yes or no), admission from emergency department (yes or no) were also included. Finally, to control for the impact of seasonal variation on study outcomes between the 2 periods, we created a variable reflecting the 4 seasons. Patients were assigned to this variable based on date of admission and the effect of seasonality was tested against both outcomes before and after PCR BCID was implemented.

Outcomes

The study had 2 outcomes. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (in days) and the secondary outcome was duration of antibiotic therapy (in days). Antibiotic therapy included data on intravenous antibiotics and some of the highly bioavailable oral antibiotics that are sometimes used to treat bacteremia (eg, fluoroquinolones). Only antibiotics that were prescribed within 72 hours after the first blood-culture draw were included, based on the assumption that antibiotics ordered within this timeframe would likely be related to the first blood-culture event. Duration of antibiotic therapy was measured as the average maintenance dose of antibiotics prescribed per day (ie, daily defined dose). To ensure the correctness of data on antibiotic administration and length of stay, a convenience subset of 50 patient admission records were checked manually.

Power calculation

An independent t test with a 2-sided α = .05, a sample of 305 contaminated episodes in the pre-PCR period and 464 contaminated episodes in the post-PCR period provided 80% power to detect a standardized mean difference of 0.206. G*Power software was used for power analyses. Reference Faul, Erdfelder, Lang and Buchner19

Statistical analysis

For descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations were calculated for continuous variables, and counts and percentages for categorical variables. The χ2 test and the 2-sample independent t test were used to determine associations between main exposure variable and secondary exposure variables. Variables associated (P < .10) with both the outcome variables in crude analyses were assessed further in the multivariable model. Generalized linear models with a negative binomial distribution were used for univariable and multivariable analysis of both outcomes. The final multivariable model was developed by adding secondary exposure variables in a forward stepwise selection process. We used the Akaike information criterion (AIC) value to assess model fit.

A segmented regression analysis was performed to ascertain trends before and after the introduction of the PCR-based BCID system. Thus, we tested the primary exposure variable (PCR status), a time variable (in months) and a 2-way interaction term between the time variable and primary exposure variable against the outcome. If any significant associations were detected during segmented regression analysis (P < .05), the same model would be used to create the final multivariable model by adding relevant covariates in a forward stepwise selection process. The model fit for the multivariable model would be based on the smallest AIC. Segmented regression analysis allowed for comparison of any difference in outcomes while controlling for the overall trend during the pre-PCR period that could carry over into the post-PCR period. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

In total, 26,303 admissions that included blood-culture testing were identified between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013 (pre-PCR group; n = 7,048) and between June 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016 (post-PCR group; n = 19,255). After exclusions, 769 patients with 305 contaminated episodes from the pre-PCR period and 464 contaminated episodes from the post-PCR period were included in the final analytical sample (Fig. 1). Some data (<1%) pertaining to race, marital status, and health insurance were missing. BMI data were missing for up to 5% of patients. Nearly 8% of data were missing information on smoking status, and ∼50% of the data were missing on alcohol status.

Fig. 1. Flowchart of study participants. aEquivocal accounts for any combination of blood culture results that did not strictly fit into positive, negative, or contaminated category.

A comparison of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics between the 2 groups is presented in Table 1. Although we were able to obtain data on underlying diseases relevant to the study outcomes, the numbers in each group were not sufficient for multivariable analysis.

Table 1. Clinical and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Study Participants by PCR Status

Note: ED, emergency department; ICU, intensive care unit; SD, standard deviation.

a χ2 test.

b <1% missing data.

c Other includes Asian, Hawaiin, Pacific Islander, Native American.

d <50% missing data.

e Drinks alcohol includes drinks alcohol daily, drinks alcohol every other day, drinks alcohol occasionally.

f ≤8% missing data.

g Smoker includes current smoker, former smoker, daily smoker.

h <5% missing data.

i 2-sample independent t test.

j Fisher exact test.

Trend over time

The segmented regression analysis did not reveal an effect of time on the association between primary exposure (PCR status) and either study outcome, that is, length of hospital stay (Fig. 2) and days of antibiotic therapy (Fig. 3). The 2-way interaction term between the time variable and primary exposure was not significant for both outcomes (P ≥ .05) and therefore were not included in the final multivariable models.

Fig. 2. Segmented regression analysis of length of hospital stay (LOS) versus time. The vertical line designates the introduction of the rapid blood-culture system (BCID). The open circles are LOS for individual patients. The predicted series values (dashed line) vary in a very close proximity to the predicted mean trend (solid line). The (narrow) band for the predicted mean trend is at the 95% confidence level, whereas the (wider) band is for 95% likelihood prediction band of individual series values. At introduction of BCID (vertical line), neither significant vertical change (jump or drop) in mean trend line, nor statistically significant change of mean trend (slope) for LOS was observed.

Fig. 3. Segmented regression analysis for defined daily dose of antibiotic therapy (DDD) versus time. The vertical line designates the introduction of the rapid blood-culture system (BCID). The open circles are days of antibiotic therapy for individual patients. The predicted series values (dashed line) and the predicted mean trend (solid line) are almost undistinguishable. The (narrow) band for the predicted mean trend is at the 95% confidence level, whereas the (wider) band is for 95% likelihood prediction band of individual series values. At introduction of BCID (vertical line), neither significant vertical change (jump or drop) in mean trend line, nor statistically significant change of mean trend (slope) for DDD was observed.

Duration of hospital stay

Rapid PCR-based blood-culture testing was not associated with a significant change in the length of hospital stay (LOS) for patients with contaminated blood cultures (P = .413) (Table 2). The mean adjusted LOSs for patients with contaminated blood cultures before and after the implementation of the rapid identification system were 10.8 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8–11.9) and 11.2 days (95% CI, 10.2–12.3), respectively. A comparison of the unadjusted and adjusted mean length of stay is presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Final Multivariable Model for Length of Stay (LOS) After Adjustment of Covariates

Note. CI, confidence interval; ED, emergency department; ICU, intensive care unit.

a Adjusted for age, race, admission from ED, ICU stay.

b Other includes Asian, Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Native American.

Table 3. Comparison of Adjusted and Unadjusted Means for Each Outcome.

Note. CI, confidence interval; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; LOS, length of stay; ED, emergency department; ICU, intensive care unit.

a Mean LOS adjusted for trend over time, age, race, admission from ED and ICU stay during hospitalization.

b Mean days of antibiotic therapy adjusted for trend over time and ICU stay during hospitalization.

Days of antibiotic therapy

Similar to LOS, duration of antibiotic therapy for patients with contaminated blood culture before and after implementation of rapid PCR blood culture testing did not differ significantly (P = .543) (Table 4). In the pre-PCR period, patients were treated with antibiotics for an average of 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5–5.7), and during the post-PCR period patients were treated for 5.3 days (95% CI, 4.8–5.9), after controlling for ICU stay during hospitalization. A comparison of the unadjusted and adjusted mean days of antibiotic therapy is presented in Table 3.

Table 4. Final Multivariable Model for Antibiotic Days of Therapy (Abx DOT) After Adjustment of Covariates

Note. Abx DOT, days of antibiotic therapy; CI, confidence interval; PCR, polymerase chain reaction assay; ED, emergency department; ICU, intensive care unit.

a Adjusted for ICU stay during admission.

Discussion

Results of this study indicate that the use of a molecular-based rapid blood culture identification system did not affect clinical outcomes in patients with contaminated cultures. Similarly, past studies on contaminated blood culture have also largely shown an insignificant impact of PCR testing on clinical outcomes. Reference Pardo, Klinker, Borgert, Butler, Giglio and Rand16,Reference Cattoir, Merabet and Djibo18,Reference MacVane and Nolte20 Several reasons may explain the lack of impact of PCR testing on clinical outcomes associated with blood-culture contamination.

First, clinicians continue to fear undertreating or missing real infections and are thus quick to respond to any positive blood culture. For example, although rare, given the serious consequences of untreated infection due to usual contaminants, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, previous studies have shown that clinicians lean toward management of patients with contaminated blood cultures similar to true infections. Reference Sidhu, Malhotra, Devi and Tuli21,Reference Donner, Campbell, Lyden and Van Schooneveld22 Second, many clinicians do not fully appreciate harms associated with inappropriate treatment of blood-culture contamination such as prolongation of hospital stay, excess costs, emergence of antibiotic resistance, or Clostridiodes difficile infection. Reference Barrasa-Villar, Aibar-Remón, Prieto-Andrés, Mareca-Doñate and Moliner-Lahoz23Reference Dellit, Owens and McGowan25 Increased awareness and education among clinicians is needed regarding the negative impact of contaminated blood cultures.

To be most effective, rapid PCR-based BCID systems should be coupled with an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) that can assist clinicians with real-time interpretation and appropriate clinical response. At our institution, the introduction of the BCID system was accompanied by a passive educational program. Past studies have shown that a robust ASP, that monitors patient management and provides feedback in real time, utilized in combination with rapid PCR testing, significantly reduces unwanted clinical consequences in patients with true bloodstream infections. Reference MacVane, Raux and Smith17,Reference MacVane and Nolte20,Reference Banerjee, Teng and Cunningham26 The influence of a strong ASP on patient outcomes has also been demonstrated in conjunction with conventional blood-culture methods. Reference MacVane and Nolte20 However, to obtain maximum benefit, the implementation of new technology should be accompanied by decision support tools and interpretive guidance. Reference Donner, Campbell, Lyden and Van Schooneveld22 At the Nebraska Medical Center, the ASP has developed recommendations and an educational program to guide antimicrobial use based on the BCID results. 27

A strength of our study was the larger sample size of patients with contaminated blood cultures in both pre-PCR and post-PCR groups than in previous studies, which allowed greater precision around the estimates. An advantage of the segmented regression analysis is that it allows and accounts for unintended consequences of interventions and policy changes that might have had an impact on study outcomes.

This study had several limitations. Potential information and misclassification bias is inherent in the retrospective study design. We noted differences between the groups regarding the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and health insurance status, which could indicate cohort mismatch. Additionally, we did not have sufficient data to control for some underlying diseases, which might have resulted in confounding. Additional confounders were ASP efforts, clinician behavior, and staff turnover. The institution where this study was conducted is an academic medical center and thus has many trainees who turnover on a regular basis. As noted, the organization has in place a robust ASP, and various efforts were ongoing to improve antimicrobial use during the study period. Finally, we did not assess whether patients had indwelling prosthetic devices (eg, prosthetic heart valves, vascular grafts, etc), which could influence the clinical assessment of blood culture contamination.

In conclusion, the introduction of a rapid PCR-based blood culture identification system did not improve clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic therapy, in patients with contaminated blood cultures.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2022.314

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the expertise and support by Dr Paul Fey and Amy Armbrust in the Nebraska Medicine Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

M.E.R. reports having received research funding from Magnolia Medical Technologies. All other authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

Adrie, C, Garrouste-Orgeas, M, Ibn Essaied, W, et al. Attributable mortality of ICU-acquired bloodstream infections: impact of the source, causative micro-organism, resistance profile and antimicrobial therapy. J Infect 2017;74:131141.10.1016/j.jinf.2016.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekema, DJ, Beekmann, SE, Chapin, KC, Morel, KA, Munson, E, Doern, GV. Epidemiology and outcome of nosocomial and community-onset bloodstream infection. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:36553660.10.1128/JCM.41.8.3655-3660.2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, KA, Perez, KK, Forrest, GN, Goff, DA. Review of rapid diagnostic tests used by antimicrobial stewardship programs. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59 suppl 3:S134S145.10.1093/cid/ciu547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opota, O, Croxatto, A, Prod’hom, G, Greub, G. Blood culture-based diagnosis of bacteraemia: state of the art. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:313322.10.1016/j.cmi.2015.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pien, BC, Sundaram, P, Raoof, N, et al. The clinical and prognostic importance of positive blood cultures in adults. Am J Med 2010;123:819828.10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.03.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, KK, Lyman, JA. Updated review of blood culture contamination. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006;19:788802.10.1128/CMR.00062-05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doern, GV, Carroll, KC, Diekema, DJ, et al. Practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories: a comprehensive update on the problem of blood culture contamination and a discussion of methods for addressing the problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2019;33:e0000919.10.1128/CMR.00009-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klucher, JM, Davis, K, Lakkad, M, Painter, JT, Dare, RK. Risk factors and clinical outcomes associated with blood culture contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:291297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez, MD, Chao, T, Pettengill, MA. Modern blood culture: management decisions and method options. Clin Lab Med 2020;40:379392.10.1016/j.cll.2020.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BioFire Diagnostics I, ed. FilmArray blood culture identification panel: instruction booklet. Salt Lake City, UT: BioFire Diagnostics; 2013.Google Scholar
Blaschke, AJ, Heyrend, C, Byington, CL, et al. Rapid identification of pathogens from positive blood cultures by multiplex polymerase chain reaction using the FilmArray system. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;74:349355.10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, BW, Ginocchio, CC, Manii, R, et al. Multiplex identification of gram-positive bacteria and resistance determinants directly from positive blood culture broths: evaluation of an automated microarray-based nucleic acid test. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001478.10.1371/journal.pmed.1001478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledeboer, NA, Lopansri, BK, Dhiman, N, et al. Identification of gram-negative bacteria and genetic resistance determinants from positive blood culture broths by use of the verigene gram-negative blood culture multiplex microarray-based molecular assay. J Clin Microbiol 2015;53:24602472.10.1128/JCM.00581-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pence, MA, McElvania TeKippe E, Burnham CA. Diagnostic assays for identification of microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance determinants directly from positive blood culture broth. Clin Lab Med 2013;33:651684.10.1016/j.cll.2013.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, SS, Madison, B, Snyder, SR, et al. Effectiveness of practices to increase timeliness of providing targeted therapy for inpatients with bloodstream infections: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2016;29:59103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pardo, J, Klinker, KP, Borgert, SJ, Butler, BM, Giglio, PG, Rand, KH. Clinical and economic impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions with the FilmArray blood culture identification panel. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2016;84:159164.10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.10.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacVane, SH, Raux, BR, Smith, TT. Evaluation of rapid polymerase chain reaction-based organism identification of gram-positive cocci for patients with a single positive blood culture. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019;38:14711479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattoir, V, Merabet, L, Djibo, N, et al. Clinical impact of a real-time PCR assay for rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus and determination of methicillin resistance from positive blood cultures. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011;17:425431.10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03233.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, Buchner, A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175191.10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacVane, SH, Nolte, FS. Benefits of adding a rapid PCR-based blood culture identification panel to an established antimicrobial stewardship program. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:24552463.10.1128/JCM.00996-16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, SK, Malhotra, S, Devi, P, Tuli, AK. Significance of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus from blood cultures: persisting problems and partial progress in resource-constrained settings. Iran J Microbiol 2016;8:366371.Google Scholar
Donner, LM, Campbell, WS, Lyden, E, Van Schooneveld, TC. Assessment of rapid blood-culture identification result interpretation and antibiotic prescribing practices. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:14961507.10.1128/JCM.02395-16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrasa-Villar, JI, Aibar-Remón, C, Prieto-Andrés, P, Mareca-Doñate, R, Moliner-Lahoz, J. Impact on morbidity, mortality, and length of stay of hospital-acquired infections by resistant microorganisms. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:644652.10.1093/cid/cix411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernaz, N, Hill, K, Leggeat, S, et al. Temporal effects of antibiotic use and Clostridium difficile infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;63:12721275.10.1093/jac/dkp128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellit, TH, Owens, RC, McGowan, JE, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:159177.10.1086/510393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, R, Teng, CB, Cunningham, SA, et al. Randomized trial of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based blood culture identification and susceptibility testing. Clin Infect Dis 2015;61:10711080.10.1093/cid/civ447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nebraska Medicine Antimicrobial Stewardship Program. Recommendations regarding the use of Blood Culture Identification (BCID) panel data. https://www.unmc.edu/intmed/_documents/id/asp/news/bcid2-final-8-11-21.pdf. Published August 11, 2021. Updated 2021. Accessed December 17, 2022.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Flowchart of study participants. aEquivocal accounts for any combination of blood culture results that did not strictly fit into positive, negative, or contaminated category.

Figure 1

Table 1. Clinical and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Study Participants by PCR Status

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Segmented regression analysis of length of hospital stay (LOS) versus time. The vertical line designates the introduction of the rapid blood-culture system (BCID). The open circles are LOS for individual patients. The predicted series values (dashed line) vary in a very close proximity to the predicted mean trend (solid line). The (narrow) band for the predicted mean trend is at the 95% confidence level, whereas the (wider) band is for 95% likelihood prediction band of individual series values. At introduction of BCID (vertical line), neither significant vertical change (jump or drop) in mean trend line, nor statistically significant change of mean trend (slope) for LOS was observed.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Segmented regression analysis for defined daily dose of antibiotic therapy (DDD) versus time. The vertical line designates the introduction of the rapid blood-culture system (BCID). The open circles are days of antibiotic therapy for individual patients. The predicted series values (dashed line) and the predicted mean trend (solid line) are almost undistinguishable. The (narrow) band for the predicted mean trend is at the 95% confidence level, whereas the (wider) band is for 95% likelihood prediction band of individual series values. At introduction of BCID (vertical line), neither significant vertical change (jump or drop) in mean trend line, nor statistically significant change of mean trend (slope) for DDD was observed.

Figure 4

Table 2. Final Multivariable Model for Length of Stay (LOS) After Adjustment of Covariates

Figure 5

Table 3. Comparison of Adjusted and Unadjusted Means for Each Outcome.

Figure 6

Table 4. Final Multivariable Model for Antibiotic Days of Therapy (Abx DOT) After Adjustment of Covariates

Supplementary material: File

Khan et al. supplementary material

Khan et al. supplementary material

Download Khan et al. supplementary material(File)
File 13.2 KB