Download PDF
Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 43(01): 075-096
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741018
Review Article

Microbiology Assessments in Critically Ill Patients

Adrian John Brink
1   Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
2   National Health Laboratory Service, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
,
Chad M. Centner
1   Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
2   National Health Laboratory Service, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
,
Stefan Opperman
1   Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
3   National Health Laboratory Service, Green Point, Cape Town, South Africa
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The prevalence of suspected or proven infections in critically ill patients is high, with a substantial attributable risk to in-hospital mortality. Coordinated guidance and interventions to improve the appropriate microbiological assessment for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are therefore pivotal. Conventional microbiology follows the paradigm of “best practice” of specimen selection and collection, governed by laboratory processing and standard operating procedures, and informed by the latest developments and trends. In this regard, the preanalytical phase of a microbiological diagnosis is crucial since inadequate sampling may result in the incorrect diagnosis and inappropriate management. In addition, the isolation and detection of contaminants interfere with multiple intensive care unit (ICU) processes, which confound the therapeutic approach to critically ill patients. To facilitate bedside enablement, the microbiology laboratory should provide expedited feedback, reporting, and interpretation of results. Compared with conventional microbiology, novel rapid and panel-based diagnostic strategies have the clear advantages of a rapid turnaround time, the detection of many microorganisms including antimicrobial resistant determinants and thus promise substantial improvements in health care. However, robust data on the clinical evaluation of rapid diagnostic tests in presumed sepsis, sepsis and shock are extremely limited and more rigorous intervention studies, focusing on direct benefits for critically ill patients, are pivotal before widespread adoption of their use through the continuum of ICU stay. Advocating the use of these diagnostics without firmly establishing which patients would benefit most, how to interpret the results, and how to treat according to the results obtained, could in fact be counterproductive with regards to diagnostic “best practice” and antimicrobial stewardship. Thus, for the present, they may supplement but not yet supplant conventional microbiological assessments.

Keywords

microbiology - assessment - ICU - best practice


Publication History

Article published online:
16 February 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Yin M, Tambyah PA, Perencevich EN. Infection, antibiotics, and patient outcomes in the intensive care unit. JAMA 2020; 323 (15) 1451-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brink AJ. Epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections globally. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2019; 32 (06) 609-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brink AJ, Richards GA. The role of multidrug and extensive-drug resistant gram-negative bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2020; 33 (02) 93-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kollef MH, Bassetti M, Francois B. et al. The intensive care medicine research agenda on multidrug-resistant bacteria, antibiotics, and stewardship. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43 (09) 1187-1197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Timsit JF, Bassetti M, Cremer O. et al. Rationalizing antimicrobial therapy in the ICU: a narrative review. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45 (02) 172-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Denny KJ, De Waele J, Laupland KB, Harris PNA, Lipman J. When not to start antibiotics: avoiding antibiotic overuse in the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26 (01) 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lee C-C, Lee C-H, Chuang M-C, Hong M-Y, Hsu H-C, Ko W-C. Impact of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy on outcome of bacteremic adults visiting the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30 (08) 1447-1456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ibrahim EH, Sherman G, Ward S, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. The influence of inadequate antimicrobial treatment of bloodstream infections on patient outcomes in the ICU setting. Chest 2000; 118 (01) 146-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Burillo A, Muñoz P, Bouza E. Risk stratification for multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections in ICU patients. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2019; 32 (06) 626-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bassetti M, Righi E, Vena A, Graziano E, Russo A, Peghin M. Risk stratification and treatment of ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by multidrug- resistant/extensively drug-resistant/pandrug-resistant bacteria. Curr Opin Crit Care 2018; 24 (05) 385-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brink AJ, Richards G. Best practice: antibiotic decision-making in ICUs. Curr Opin Crit Care 2020; 26 (05) 478-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 De Waele JJ, Schouten J, Beovic B, Tabah A, Leone M. Antimicrobial de-escalation as part of antimicrobial stewardship in intensive care: no simple answers to simple questions-a viewpoint of experts. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46 (02) 236-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tabah A, Cotta MO, Garnacho-Montero J. et al. A systematic review of the definitions, determinants, and clinical outcomes of antimicrobial de-escalation in the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62 (08) 1009-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tamma PD, Miller MA, Cosgrove SE. Rethinking how antibiotics are prescribed: Incorporating the 4 moments of antibiotic decision making into clinical practice. JAMA 2019; 321 (02) 139-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W. et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43 (03) 304-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Baron EJ. Collection and handling of clinical microbiological specimens. In: Schaechter M. ed. Encyclopedia of Microbiology (Third Edition). Oxford; Academic Press: 2009: 104-129
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Baron EJ, Miller JM, Weinstein MP. et al; A guide to utilization of the microbiology laboratory for diagnosis of infectious diseases: 2013 recommendations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57 (04) e22-e121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 International Organization for Standardization. Medical laboratories – Particular requirements for quality and competence. (ISO Standard No 15189:2007)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yuen KY, Ho PL, Wong SSY, Luk WK, Lai RWM. The role of clinical microbiologists in infectious disease management. HKMJ 1995; 1: 123-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Scheer CS, Fuchs C, Gründling M. et al. Impact of antibiotic administration on blood culture positivity at the beginning of sepsis: a prospective clinical cohort study. CMI 2019; 25 (03) 326-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cheng MP, Stenstrom R, Paquette K. et al. Blood culture results before and after antimicrobial administration in patients with severe manifestations of sepsis: A diagnostic study. Ann Intern Med 2019; 171 (08) 547-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 CLSI. Principles and procedures for blood cultures; approved guideline. CLSI document M47-A. Wayne PA: Clinical and Laboratory and Standards Institute; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Riedel S, Bourbeau P, Swartz B. et al. Timing of specimen collection for blood cultures from febrile patients with bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46 (04) 1381-1385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lamy B, Dargère S, Arendrup MC, Parienti JJ, Tattevin P. How to optimize the use of blood cultures for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections? A state-of-the art. Front Microbiol 2016; 7: 697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Riley JA, Heiter BJ, Bourbeau PP. Comparison of recovery of blood culture isolates from two BacT/ALERT FAN aerobic blood culture bottles with recovery from one FAN aerobic bottle and one FAN anaerobic bottle. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41 (01) 213-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lafaurie M, d'Anglejan E, Donay JL. et al. Utility of anaerobic bottles for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections. BMC Infect Dis 2020; 20 (01) 142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Neves L, Marra AR, Camargo TZS. et al. Correlation between mass and volume of collected blood with positivity of blood cultures. BMC Res Notes 2015; 8 (01) 383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kiyoyama T, Tokuda Y, Shiiki S, Hachiman T, Shimasaki T, Endo K. Isopropyl alcohol compared with isopropyl alcohol plus povidone-iodine as skin preparation for prevention of blood culture contamination. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47 (01) 54-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Paquette K, Sweet D, Stenstrom R. et al. Neither blood culture positivity nor time to positivity is associated with mortality among patients presenting with severe manifestations of sepsis: the FABLED cohort study. Open Forum Infect Dis 2021; 8 (07) b321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Opperman CJ, Baloyi B, Dlamini S, Samodien N. Blood culture contamination rates at different level healthcare institutions in the Western Cape, South Africa. S Afr J Infect Dis 2020; 35 (01) 222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Alahmadi YM, McElnay JC, Kearney MP. et al. Tackling the problem of blood culture contamination in the intensive care unit using an educational intervention. Epidemiol Infect 2015; 143 (09) 1964-1971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Garcia RA, Spitzer ED, Beaudry J. et al. Multidisciplinary team review of best practices for collection and handling of blood cultures to determine effective interventions for increasing the yield of true-positive bacteremias, reducing contamination, and eliminating false-positive central line-associated bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control 2015; 43 (11) 1222-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Safdar N, Fine JP, Maki DG. Meta-analysis: methods for diagnosing intravascular device-related bloodstream infection. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142 (06) 451-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (23) 1305-1309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gaur AH, Flynn PM, Giannini MA, Shenep JL, Hayden RT. Difference in time to detection: a simple method to differentiate catheter-related from non-catheter-related bloodstream infection in immunocompromised pediatric patients. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37 (04) 469-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M. et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63 (05) e61-e111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Cardeñosa Cendrero JA, Solé-Violán J, Bordes Benítez A. et al. Role of different routes of tracheal colonization in the development of pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Chest 1999; 116 (02) 462-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dray S, Coiffard B, Persico N, Papazian L, Hraiech S. Are tracheal surveillance cultures useful in the intensive care unit?. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6 (21) 421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Maes M, Higginson E, Pereira-Dias J. et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Crit Care 2021; 25 (01) 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Prattes J, Wauters J, Giacobbe DR. et al; ECMM-CAPA Study Group. Risk factors and outcome of pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients—a multinational observational study by the European Confederation of Medical Mycology. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021;S1198-743X(21)00474-2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Feldman C, Anderson R. The role of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19. Pneumonia (Nathan) 2021; 13 (01) 5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bengoechea JA, Bamford CG. SARS-CoV-2, bacterial co-infections, and AMR: the deadly trio in COVID-19?. EMBO Mol Med 2020; 12 (07) e12560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Donà D, Di Chiara C, Sharland M. Multi-drug-resistant infections in the COVID-19 era: a framework for considering the potential impact. J Hosp Infect 2020; 106 (01) 198-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Adler H, Ball R, Fisher M, Mortimer K, Vardhan MS. Low rate of bacterial co-infection in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Microbe 2020; 1 (02) e62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Nicolle LE, Gupta K, Bradley SF. et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of asymptomatic bacteriuria: 2019 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68 (10) e83-e110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD. et al; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50 (05) 625-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Mullin KM, Kovacs CS, Fatica C. et al. A multifaceted approach to reduction of catheter-associated urinary tract infections in the intensive care unit with an emphasis on “stewardship of culturing”. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38 (02) 186-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Levin PD, Hersch M, Rudensky B, Yinnon AM. Routine surveillance blood cultures: their place in the management of critically ill patients. J Infect 1997; 35 (02) 125-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Babady NE. Laboratory diagnosis of infections in cancer patients: challenges and opportunities. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54 (11) 2635-2646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Neemann K, Yonts AB, Qiu F, Simonsen K, Lowas S, Freifeld A. Blood cultures for persistent fever in neutropenic pediatric patients are of low diagnostic yield. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2016; 5 (02) 218-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kuehl R, Morata L, Boeing C. et al; International Staphylococcus aureus collaboration study group and the ESCMID Study Group for Bloodstream Infections, Endocarditis and Sepsis. Defining persistent Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20 (12) 1409-1417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR. et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62 (04) e1-e50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Wiggers JB, Xiong W, Daneman N. Sending repeat cultures: is there a role in the management of bacteremic episodes? (SCRIBE study). BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16 (01) 286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Maskarinec SA, Park LP, Ruffin F. et al. Positive follow-up blood cultures identify high mortality risk among patients with gram-negative bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26 (07) 904-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Kohlenberg A, Schwab F, Behnke M, Gastmeier P. Screening and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 186 intensive care units: different situations and individual solutions. Crit Care 2011; 15 (06) R285 (corrected in Crit Care. 2012;16(1):402)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Kavanagh KT, Calderon LE, Saman DM. Viewpoint: a response to “screening and isolation to control methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: sense, nonsense, and evidence”. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015; 4 (01) 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Senn L, Basset P, Nahimana I, Zanetti G, Blanc DS. Which anatomical sites should be sampled for screening of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage by culture or by rapid PCR test?. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 (02) E31-E33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Ahmad A, Teoh KH, Lau L, Cheng N, Evans AR. Can we reduce the number of MRSA screening site swabs in elective orthopedic patients?. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2019; 27 (02) 2309499019847068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 1995; 44 (RR-12): 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Richter SS, Marchaim D. Screening for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: who, when, and how?. Virulence 2017; 8 (04) 417-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Tacconelli E, Mazzaferri F, de Smet AM, Bragantini D, Eggimann P, Huttner BD. et al. ESCMID-EUCIC clinical guidelines on decolonization of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria carriers. Clin Microbiol Infect 2019; 25 (07) 807-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Tiri B, Sensi E, Marsiliani V. et al. Antimicrobial stewardship program, COVID-19, and infection control: spread of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonization in ICU COVID-19 patients. What did not work?. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (09) E2744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 World Health Organization. Diagnostic stewardship: a guide to implementation in antimicrobial resistance surveillance sites. World Health Organization; 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Kim M, Song KH, Kim CJ. et al. Electronic alerts with automated consultations promote appropriate antimicrobial prescriptions. PLoS One 2016; 11 (08) e0160551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Morency-Potvin P, Schwartz DN, Weinstein RA. Antimicrobial stewardship: how the microbiology laboratory can right the ship. Clin Microbiol Rev 2016; 30 (01) 381-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Johnson LS, Patel D, King EA, Maslow JN. Impact of microbiology cascade reporting on antibiotic de-escalation in cefazolin-susceptible Gram-negative bacteremia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2016; 35 (07) 1151-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Kac G, Grohs P, Durieux P. et al. Impact of electronic alerts on isolation precautions for patients with multidrug-resistant bacteria. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167 (19) 2086-2090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Kowalska-Krochmal B, Dudek-Wicher R. The minimum inhibitory concentration of antibiotics: methods, interpretation, clinical relevance. Pathogens 2021; 10 (02) 165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 D'Onofrio V, Salimans L, Bedenić B, Cartuyvels R, Barišić I, Gyssens IC. The clinical impact of rapid molecular microbiological diagnostics for pathogen and resistance gene identification in patients with sepsis: a systematic review. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020; 7 (10) a352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Hanson KE, Azar MM, Banerjee R. et al. Molecular testing for acute respiratory tract infections: clinical and diagnostic recommendations from the IDSA's Diagnostics Committee. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71 (10) 2744-2751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Sinclair A, Xie X, Teltscher M, Dendukuri N. Systematic review and meta-analysis of a urine-based pneumococcal antigen test for diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae . J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51 (07) 2303-2310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Desai A, Santonocito OG, Caltagirone G. et al. Effectiveness of Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary antigen testing in decreasing mortality of COVID-19 co-infected patients: a clinical investigation. Medicina (Kaunas) 2020; 56 (11) 572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Tootla HD, Bamford C, Centner CM, Moodley C. The BinaxNOW pneumococcal antigen test: an adjunct for diagnosis of pneumococcal bacteraemia. S Afr J Infect Dis 2021; 36 (01) 244
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Yu VL. Legionnaires' disease: importance of high index of suspicion in patients in the ICU with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2014; 145 (02) 202-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Shimada T, Noguchi Y, Jackson JL. et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis: urinary antigen tests for Legionellosis. Chest 2009; 136 (06) 1576-1585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Peri AM, Stewart A, Hume A, Irwin A, Harris PNA. New microbiological techniques for the diagnosis of bacterial infections and sepsis in ICU including point of care. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2021; 23 (08) 12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Buehler SS, Madison B, Snyder SR. et al. Effectiveness of practices to increase timeliness of providing targeted therapy for inpatients with bloodstream infections: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2016; 29 (01) 59-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Timbrook TT, Morton JB, McConeghy KW, Caffrey AR, Mylonakis E, LaPlante KL. The effect of molecular rapid diagnostic testing on clinical outcomes in bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64 (01) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Tafelski S, Nachtigall I, Adam T. et al; Molecular Diagnostics of Sepsis Study Group. Randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating multiplex polymerase chain reaction for pathogen identification and therapy adaptation in critical care patients with pulmonary or abdominal sepsis. J Int Med Res 2015; 43 (03) 364-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Bhat BV, Prasad P, Ravi Kumar VB. et al. Syndrome Evaluation System (SES) versus Blood Culture (BACTEC) in the diagnosis and management of neonatal sepsis - a randomized controlled trial. Indian J Pediatr 2016; 83 (05) 370-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Cambau E, Durand-Zaleski I, Bretagne S. et al; EVAMICA study team. Performance and economic evaluation of the molecular detection of pathogens for patients with severe infections: the EVAMICA open-label, cluster-randomised, interventional crossover trial. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43 (11) 1613-1625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Tansarli GS, Chapin KC. Diagnostic test accuracy of the BioFire® FilmArray® meningitis/encephalitis panel: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26 (03) 281-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Goodlet KJ, Tan E, Knutson L, Nailor MD. Impact of the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel on antimicrobial duration among patients with suspected central nervous system infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2021; 100 (04) 115394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Moffa MA, Bremmer DN, Carr D. et al. Impact of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay on the clinical management of adults undergoing a lumbar puncture for suspected community-onset central nervous system infections. Antibiotics (Basel) 2020; 9 (06) E282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Vaugon E, Fontela PS, Papenburg J. Re: ‘diagnostic test accuracy of the BioFire® FilmArray® Meningitis/Encephalitis panel’ by Chapin et al. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26 (10) 1419-1420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Dack K, Pankow S, Ablah E, Zackula R, Assi M. Contribution of the BioFire® FilmArray® meningitis/encephalitis panel: assessing antimicrobial duration and length of stay. Kans J Med 2019; 12 (01) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Timbrook TT, Hueth KD, Ginocchio CC. Identification of bacterial co-detections in COVID-19 critically Ill patients by BioFire® FilmArray® pneumonia panel: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2021; 101 (03) 115476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Enne VI, Aydin A, Baldan R. et al. Multicentre evaluation of two multiplex PCR platforms for the rapid microbiological investigation of nosocomial pneumonia in UK ICUs: the INHALE WP1 study. MedRxiv. 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Chong WH, Neu KP. Incidence, diagnosis and outcomes of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA): a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2021; 113: 115-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Vasala A, Hytönen VP, Laitinen OH. Modern tools for rapid diagnostics of antimicrobial resistance. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020; 10: 308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Mirzaei R, Babakhani S, Ajorloo P. et al. The emerging role of exosomal miRNAs as a diagnostic and therapeutic biomarker in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Mol Med 2021; 27 (01) 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Cao Y, Fanning S, Proos S, Jordan K, Srikumar S. A review on the applications of next generation sequencing technologies as applied to food-related microbiome studies. Front Microbiol 2017; 8: 1829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Niles DT, Wijetunge DSS, Palazzi DL, Singh IR, Revell PA. Plasma metagenomic next-generation sequencing assay for identifying pathogens: a retrospective review of test utilization in a large children's hospital. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 58 (11) e00794-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Mallick H, Franzosa EA, Mclver LJ. et al. Predictive metabolomic profiling of microbial communities using amplicon or metagenomic sequences. Nat Commun 2019; 10 (01) 3136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Salvato F, Hettich RL, Kleiner M. Five key aspects of metaproteomics as a tool to understand functional interactions in host-associated microbiomes. PLoS Pathog 2021; 17 (02) e1009245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Han S, Van Treuren W, Fischer CR. et al. A metabolomics pipeline for the mechanistic interrogation of the gut microbiome. Nature 2021; 595 (7867): 415-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Hussein K, Bitterman R, Shofty B, Paul M, Neuberger A. Management of post-neurosurgical meningitis: narrative review. Clin Microbiol Infect 2017; 23 (09) 621-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Ferone M, Gowen A, Fanning S, Scannell AGM. Microbial detection and identification methods: bench top assays to omics approaches. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2020; 19 (06) 3106-3129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Segawa S, Sawai S, Murata S. et al. Direct application of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry to cerebrospinal fluid for rapid pathogen identification in a patient with bacterial meningitis. Clin Chim Acta 2014; 435: 59-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Osthoff M, Gürtler N, Bassetti S. et al. Impact of MALDI-TOF-MS-based identification directly from positive blood cultures on patient management: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Microbiol Infect 2017; 23 (02) 78-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Pascucci M, Royer G, Adamek J. et al. AI-based mobile application to fight antibiotic resistance. Nat Commun 2021; 12 (01) 1173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar