Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 21;13(14):2433.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13142433.

Clinical Impact of the BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel in Adult Patients with Bloodstream Infection: A Multicentre Observational Study in the United Arab Emirates

Abiola Senok  1 , Laila Al Dabal  2 , Mubarak Alfaresi  3 , Maya Habous  4 , Handan Celiloglu  5 , Safia Bashiri  2 , Naama Almaazmi  2 , Hassan Ahmed  2 , Ayman A Mohmed  6 , Omar Bahaaldin  4 , Maimona Ahmed Elsiddig Elimam  4 , Irfan Hussain Rizvi  5 , Victory Olowoyeye  1 , Michaela Powell  7 , Basel Salama  8
Affiliations

Clinical Impact of the BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel in Adult Patients with Bloodstream Infection: A Multicentre Observational Study in the United Arab Emirates

Abiola Senok et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Rapid pathogen identification is key to the proper management of patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs), especially in the intensive care setting. This multicentre study compared the time to pathogen identification results in 185 patients admitted to intensive care with a confirmed BSI, using conventional methods (n = 99 patients) and upon implementation of the BIOFIRE® Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel, a rapid molecular test allowing for the simultaneous identification of 43 BSI-related nucleic acids targets (n = 86 patients). The median time to result informing optimal antibiotic therapy was significantly shorter following the implementation of the BCID2 Panel (92 vs. 28 h pre vs. post BCID2 implementation; p < 0.0001). BCID2 usage in addition to conventional methods led to the identification of at least one pathogen in 98.8% patients vs. 87.9% using conventional methods alone (p = 0.003) and was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (17.3% vs. 31.6%, respectively; p = 0.019). This study at three intensive care units in the United Arab Emirates therefore demonstrates that, in addition to conventional microbiological methods and an effective antimicrobial stewardship program, the BCID2 Panel could improve the clinical outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a confirmed BSI.

Keywords: BCID; BCID2; BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification Panel; automated multiplex PCR; blood culture; bloodstream infection; optimal antimicrobial therapy; rapid molecular diagnostics; sepsis; targeted antimicrobial therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

M.P. and B.S. are employees of bioMérieux. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. bioMérieux supported this study in the form of technical assistance funding and provision of reagents. The funder had a role in the statistical analysis of the data and in the writing of the manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram. (a) Pre-BCID2 implementation period. Bloodstream infection diagnosis was based on the results of conventional microbiological methods. The pre-BCID2 cohort included retrospective data from ICU patients with a confirmed bloodstream infection, collected during the immediate six months preceding the implementation of the BCID2 Panel. (b) BCID2 implementation period. The BCID2 cohort included prospective data of ICU patients with a confirmed bloodstream infection, collected for a period of six months upon implementation of the BCID2 Panel. Pathogen identification was conducted using the BCID2 Panel, in addition to standard conventional methods. Bloodstream infection diagnosis was based on BCID2 results, unless they were discordant with those of the conventional approach, in which case conventional results were considered for diagnosis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Time to result informing optimal (targeted) therapy before and after implementation of BCID2 testing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Goto M., Al-Hasan M.N. Overall Burden of Bloodstream Infection and Nosocomial Bloodstream Infection in North America and Europe. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013;19:501–509. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12195. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sakr Y., Jaschinski U., Wittebole X., Szakmany T., Lipman J., Ñamendys-Silva S.A., Martin-Loeches I., Leone M., Lupu M.-N., Vincent J.-L., et al. Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Worldwide Data From the Intensive Care over Nations Audit. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2018;5:ofy313. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy313. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martinez R.M., Wolk D.M. Bloodstream Infections. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016;4:653–689. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.DMIH2-0031-2016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fleischmann C., Scherag A., Adhikari N.K.J., Hartog C.S., Tsaganos T., Schlattmann P., Angus D.C., Reinhart K., International Forum of Acute Care Trialists Assessment of Global Incidence and Mortality of Hospital-Treated Sepsis. Current Estimates and Limitations. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2016;193:259–272. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McNamara J.F., Righi E., Wright H., Hartel G.F., Harris P.N.A., Paterson D.L. Long-Term Morbidity and Mortality Following Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Infect. 2018;77:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.03.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources