首页> 外文期刊>Open Forum Infectious Diseases >Is It Actionable? An Evaluation of the Rapid PCR-Based Blood Culture Identification Panel on the Management of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Blood Stream Infections
【24h】

Is It Actionable? An Evaluation of the Rapid PCR-Based Blood Culture Identification Panel on the Management of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Blood Stream Infections

机译:可行吗?基于PCR的快速血液培养鉴定小组对革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性血流感染管理的评估

获取原文
           

摘要

BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of rapid blood culture identification (BCID) in antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although many studies have looked at its clinical and economic utility, its comparative utility in gram-positive and gram-negative blood stream infections (BSIs) has not been as well characterized.MethodsThe study was a quasi-experimental retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. All adult patients with positive blood cultures before BCID implementation (June 2015 to December 2015) and after BCID implementation (June 2016 to December 2016) were included. The outcomes of interest included time to first appropriate antibiotic escalation, time to first appropriate antibiotic de-escalation, time to organism identification, length of stay, infectious diseases consultation, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsIn total, 203 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in the time to organism identification between the pre- and post-BCID cohorts (27.1 hours vs 3.3 hours, P .0001). BCID did not significantly reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation for either gram-positive BSIs (GP-BSIs) or gram-negative BSIs (GN-BSIs). Providers were more likely to escalate antimicrobial therapy in GP-BSIs after gram stain and more likely to de-escalate therapy in GN-BSIs after susceptibilities. Although there were no significant differences in changes in antimicrobial therapy for organism identification by BCID vs traditional methods, more than one-quarter of providers (28.1%) made changes after organism identification. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or in-hospital mortality comparing pre- vs post-BCID.ConclusionsAlthough BCID significantly reduced the time to identification for both GP-BSIs and GN-BSIs, BCID did not reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation and de-escalation.
机译:背景技术在抗菌素管理计划(ASPs)中使用快速血培养鉴定(BCID)的兴趣日益浓厚。尽管许多研究都对其临床和经济效用进行了研究,但其在革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性血流感染(BSI)中的比较效用尚未得到很好的表征。方法该研究是美国梅奥诊所的一项准实验回顾性研究。亚利桑那州凤凰城。纳入所有在BCID实施之前(2015年6月至2015年12月)和BCID实施之后(2016年6月至2016年12月)血培养呈阳性的成年患者。感兴趣的结局包括首次进行适当的抗生素升级所需的时间,首次进行适当的抗生素降级所需的时间,到生物体识别的时间,住院时间,传染病咨询,出院安排和院内死亡率。结果总共纳入203例患者在这个研究中。在BCID之前和之后的人群中,鉴定生物的时间存在显着差异(27.1小时vs 3.3小时,P <.0001)。对于革兰氏阳性BSI(GP-BSI)或革兰氏阴性BSI(GN-BSI),BCID并未显着减少首次进行适当的抗菌药物升级或降级的时间。提供者更容易在革兰氏染色后升级GP-BSI中的抗菌治疗,而在药敏后更可能降低GN-BSI中的抗菌治疗。尽管与传统方法相比,通过BCID进行微生物鉴定的抗微生物治疗方法的变化没有显着差异,但超过四分之一的提供者(28.1%)在进行生物鉴定后进行了更改。 BCID前后相比,住院时间或住院死亡率无差异。结论尽管BCID显着减少了GP-BSI和GN-BSI的识别时间,但BCID并没有减少首次使用合适的抗菌药物的时间。升级和降级。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号