Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno\texttrademark system for rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative bacteria in bloodstream infections

International audienceIdentification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) are critical steps in the management of bloodstream infections. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of the Accelerate Pheno\texttrademark System, CE v1.2 software, for identification and AST of Gram-negative pathogens from positive blood culture bottles. A total of 104 bottles positive for Gram-negative bacteria collected from inpatients throughout our institution were randomly selected after Gram staining. The time-to-identification and AST results, and the raw AST results obtained by the Accelerate Pheno\texttrademark system and routine techniques (MALDI-TOF MS and VITEK\textregistered2, EUCAST guidelines) were compared. Any discrepant AST result was tested by microdilution. The Pheno\texttrademark significantly improved turn-around times for identification (5.3 versus 23.7~h; p \textless 0.0001) and AST (10.7 versus 35.1~h; p \textless 0.0001). Complete agreement between the Accelerate Pheno\texttrademark system and the MALDI-TOF MS for identification was observed for 96.2% of samples; it was 99% (98/99) for monomicrobial samples versus 40% (3/5) for polymicrobial ones. The overall categorical agreement for AST was 93.7%; it was notably decreased for beta-lactams (cefepime 84.4%, piperacillin-tazobactam 86.5%, ceftazidime 87.6%) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa (71.9%; with cefepime 33.3%, piperacillin-tazobactam 77.8%, ceftazidime 0%). Analysis of discrepant results found impaired performance of the Accelerate Pheno\texttrademark system for beta-lactams (except cefepime) in Enterobacteriales (six very major errors) and poor performance in P. aeruginosa. The Accelerate Pheno\texttrademark system significantly improved the turn-around times for bloodstream infection diagnosis. Nonetheless, improvements in the analysis of polymicrobial samples and in AST algorithms, notably beta-lactam testing in both P. aeruginosa and Enterobacteriales, are required for implementation in routine workflow

EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) in blood cultures: Validation in 55 european laboratories

© The Author(s) 2020.Objectives: When bloodstream infections are caused by resistant bacteria, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) is important for adjustment of therapy. The EUCAST RAST method, directly from positive blood cultures, was validated in a multi-laboratory study in Europe. Methods: RAST was performed in 40 laboratories in northern Europe (NE) and 15 in southern Europe (SE) from clinical blood cultures positive for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pneumoniae. Categorical results at 4, 6 and 8 h of incubation were compared with results for EUCAST standard 16–20 h disc diffusion. The method, preliminary breakpoints and the performance of the laboratories were evaluated. Results: The total number of isolates was 833/318 in NE/SE. The number of zone diameters that could be read (88%, 96% and 99%) and interpreted (70%, 81% and 85%) increased with incubation time (4, 6 and 8 h). The categorical agreement was acceptable, with total error rates in NE/SE of 2.4%/4.9% at 4 h, 1.1%/3.5% at 6 h and 1.1%/3.3% at 8 h. False susceptibility at 4, 6 and 8 h of incubation was below 0.3% and 1.1% in NE and SE, respectively, and the corresponding percentages for false resistance were below 1.9% and 2.8%. After fine-tuning breakpoints, more zones could be interpreted (73%, 89% and 93%), with only marginally affected error rates. Conclusions: The EUCAST RAST method can be implemented in routine laboratories without major investments. It provides reliable antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for relevant bloodstream infection pathogens after 4–6 h of incubation