Role of the T2Dx magnetic resonance assay in patients with suspected bloodstream infection: a single-centre real-world experience.
Antimicrobial therapy
Blood stream infections
ESKAPE
T2Dx
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Feb 2022
01 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
27
10
2021
accepted:
28
01
2022
entrez:
2
2
2022
pubmed:
3
2
2022
medline:
4
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
T2Dx was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the rapid detection of a modified panel of ESKAPE bacterial species or Candida spp. causing bloodstream infection (BSI). We performed a retrospective, observational study from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 of all hospitalised patients with suspected BSI who underwent assessment using T2Dx in addition to standard blood culture (BC). T2-positive patients (cases) were compared to a matched group of patients with BSI documented only by BC (1:2 ratio) to investigate the possible impact of T2Dx on the appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial therapy and 21-day mortality. In total, 78 T2Dx-analysed samples (49 patients) were analysed. The T2Dx assay result was positive for18 patients and negative for 31 patients. The concordance rates of the T2Bacteria Panel and T2Candida Panel results with those of standard BC were 74.4% and 91.4%, respectively. In the matched analysis, inappropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy administration was significantly less frequent in cases than in comparators (5.5% vs. 38.8%). The 21-day mortality rate was twofold lower in cases than in comparators (22.2% vs. 44.4%), although the difference was not significant. No other analysed variables were significantly different between the two groups. This study illustrated that T2Dx might be associated with an increase in the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy in patients with BSI. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether the T2Dx assay can improve patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
T2Dx was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the rapid detection of a modified panel of ESKAPE bacterial species or Candida spp. causing bloodstream infection (BSI).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We performed a retrospective, observational study from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 of all hospitalised patients with suspected BSI who underwent assessment using T2Dx in addition to standard blood culture (BC). T2-positive patients (cases) were compared to a matched group of patients with BSI documented only by BC (1:2 ratio) to investigate the possible impact of T2Dx on the appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial therapy and 21-day mortality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 78 T2Dx-analysed samples (49 patients) were analysed. The T2Dx assay result was positive for18 patients and negative for 31 patients. The concordance rates of the T2Bacteria Panel and T2Candida Panel results with those of standard BC were 74.4% and 91.4%, respectively. In the matched analysis, inappropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy administration was significantly less frequent in cases than in comparators (5.5% vs. 38.8%). The 21-day mortality rate was twofold lower in cases than in comparators (22.2% vs. 44.4%), although the difference was not significant. No other analysed variables were significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study illustrated that T2Dx might be associated with an increase in the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy in patients with BSI. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether the T2Dx assay can improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35105333
doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07096-w
pii: 10.1186/s12879-022-07096-w
pmc: PMC8805379
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Mar 1;73(suppl_4):iv20-iv26
pubmed: 29608753
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 May;56(9):1284-92
pubmed: 23315320
J Infect. 2017 Feb;74(2):187-194
pubmed: 27889413
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Sep;18(9):862-9
pubmed: 21999245
Sci Transl Med. 2013 Apr 24;5(182):182ra54
pubmed: 23616121
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Nov 1;74(11):3399-3401
pubmed: 31369095
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Mar 1;73(suppl_4):iv13-iv19
pubmed: 29608752
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 18;170(12):888-889
pubmed: 31083723
Med J Aust. 1964 Aug 22;2:320-1
pubmed: 14194486
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Jul;40(7):1059-60
pubmed: 24832566
Crit Care. 2013 Sep 12;17(5):R202
pubmed: 24028771
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0170236
pubmed: 28152067
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Jun;51(6):1987-94
pubmed: 17387156
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Sep;24(9):944-955
pubmed: 29787889
J Emerg Med. 2020 May;58(5):785-796
pubmed: 31982197
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 Mar 03;7(3):
pubmed: 33802391
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 Jun;19(6):501-9
pubmed: 23473333
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Jun;40(6):839-45
pubmed: 24807083
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Aug 31;67(6):e1-e94
pubmed: 29955859
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020 May 13;33(3):
pubmed: 32404435
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 11;19(1):798
pubmed: 31510929
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015 Jul;70(7):2133-43
pubmed: 25900159
Clin Lab. 2021 Feb 1;67(2):
pubmed: 33616331
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 6;20(1):810
pubmed: 33158426
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Dec;62(6):1379-85
pubmed: 18782778
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Mar 1;73(suppl_4):iv2-iv5
pubmed: 29608754
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Jul;66(7):1284-1289
pubmed: 29664994
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Oct;54(10):4085-91
pubmed: 20660675
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013 Apr;68(4):927-35
pubmed: 23236102
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 21;222(Suppl 2):S103-S109
pubmed: 32691836