2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.03.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rapid phenotypic methods to improve the diagnosis of bacterial bloodstream infections: meeting the challenge to reduce the time to result

Abstract: The broad panel of phenotypic methods currently available enables healthcare institutions to draw up their own individual approach to improve bloodstream infection diagnosis but requires a thorough evaluation of their workflow integration. Clinical microbiology will probably move towards faster methods while maintaining a complex multi-method approach as there is no all-in-one method.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
67
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
0
67
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The first, identification after short-term incubation on an agar plate, has yielded good results but still requires 4 to 8 h to identify 80% of bacteria at the species level (7-9), resulting in evident workflow issues. The other approach is to identify bacteria directly from blood culture bottles (BCBs) (10-13), which we adopted in our study because of its potential to significantly speed up bacterial identification (14). However, the protocols described so far, such as the manufacturer's instructions for the Sepsityper kit (Bruker) (15), are still relatively time-consuming and arduous for routine use (12,(16)(17)(18)(19), so there is still need for a quick, simple, reliable method of direct bacterial identification that would benefit patients.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first, identification after short-term incubation on an agar plate, has yielded good results but still requires 4 to 8 h to identify 80% of bacteria at the species level (7-9), resulting in evident workflow issues. The other approach is to identify bacteria directly from blood culture bottles (BCBs) (10-13), which we adopted in our study because of its potential to significantly speed up bacterial identification (14). However, the protocols described so far, such as the manufacturer's instructions for the Sepsityper kit (Bruker) (15), are still relatively time-consuming and arduous for routine use (12,(16)(17)(18)(19), so there is still need for a quick, simple, reliable method of direct bacterial identification that would benefit patients.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All rapid phenotypic AST methods will face the above discussed biological challenges to some extent, and whether a specific method will turn out to be viable will hinge on if the benefit of the rapid read-outs for a subgroup of patient isolates outweigh the increase in false or unclear readouts as well as the increased cost (9). Thus, rapid phenotypic AST methods will likely never completely replace traditional AST testing, but instead serve as an important addition to be used for example for critically ill patients (12).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The traditional methods for AST currently used in most clinical microbiology laboratories are reliable and inexpensive but comparatively slow with turnaround times (TATs) commonly of 2-3 days (12). Progress has recently been made to decrease TATs, in part through automation of existing methods but also as a result of the implementation of new technologies (12).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations