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.