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 Infection

Abstract

BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of rapid blood culture identification (BCID) panels in antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). While many studies have looked at its clinical and economic utility, its comparative utility in gram-positive and gram-negative blood stream infections (BSI) have not been as well characterized.\n\nMethodsThe 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, LOS, infectious disease consultation, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality.\n\nResultsIn total, 203 patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in the time to organism identification between pre- and post-BCID cohorts (27.1h vs. 3.3h, p<0.0001). BCID did not significantly reduce the time to first appropriate antimicrobial escalation or de-escalation for either GP-BSIs or 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. While there were no significant differences in changes in antimicrobial therapy after organism identification by BCID, over a quarter of providers (28.1%) made changes after organism identification.\n\nConclusionsWhile 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.