Next Article in Journal
Multidrug-Resistant Biofilms (MDR): Main Mechanisms of Tolerance and Resistance in the Food Supply Chain
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of the Susceptibility of Clinical Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Bacterial Strains to Fosfomycin and Significance of This Antibiotic in Infection Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Echinococcus multilocularis and Other Taeniid Metacestodes of Muskrats in Luxembourg: Prevalence, Risk Factors, Parasite Reproduction, and Genetic Diversity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Factors of Proteus mirabilis Isolated from Dog with Chronic Otitis Externa
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Accelerate Pheno™ System—A New Tool in Microbiological Diagnostics of Bloodstream Infections: A Pilot Study from Poland

1
Department of Microbiology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University (NCU) in Toruń, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Clinical Microbiology Division, University Hospital No. 1 in Bydgoszcz, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2022, 11(12), 1415; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121415
Submission received: 16 October 2022 / Revised: 10 November 2022 / Accepted: 22 November 2022 / Published: 24 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Detection and Characterization of Drug-Resistant Organisms)

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (Accelerate Diagnostics, Denver, CO, USA) for rapid laboratory diagnosis of bloodstream infections. The study included 45 positive blood samples obtained from patients hospitalized in University Hospital No. 1 in Bydgoszcz, Poland. In 40 (88.9%) blood samples, the APS was capable of identification of at least one microorganism at the genus or species level and in 38 (84.4%) of them additionally assessed antimicrobial susceptibility. The time of identification and the time to result of antimicrobial susceptibility ranged from 1:32 to 1:42 and 5:02 to 5:36 h, respectively. Six positive blood samples revealed a poly-microbial culture. In these cases, only one out of two or three microorganisms was detected by the APS, and the system assessed antimicrobial susceptibility only for them. For 78.6% positive blood samples, agreement on identification compared to mass spectrometry was found. For all but one sample, a 96–100% compliance of the resistance category was achieved when comparing the antimicrobial susceptibility testing results to conventional methods. Using the APS, the total time to report was reduced from 13:34 to even 63:47 h compared to the standard microbiological laboratory workflow. The APS is a very useful system, especially for the rapid assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria directly from positive blood samples, offering the greatest potential for microbiology laboratories operating around the clock.

1. Introduction

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) account for about 10% of all healthcare-associated infections in the EU/EEA [1]. As a consequence of these infections, patients can develop sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction, resulting from a host’s abnormal immune response to infection [2]. According to the European Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring Network (EARS-Net) data derived from 30 European countries and concerning 8 bacterial species isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid samples [3], more than half of Escherichia coli isolates and more than one-third of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates show resistance to at least one group of antimicrobials. Moreover, multi-drug resistance (MDR) phenotypes of these isolates are often observed. The high percentage of carbapenem-resistant isolates among K. pneumoniae representatives (exceeding 10% in one-fourth of the countries), and an even higher percentage of carbapenem-resistant isolates among Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, have been noted. There is also high percentage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16.7%) and vancomycin/glycopeptides-resistant (VR/GR) Enterococcus faecium strains (16.8%).
Poland, compared to other European countries, has an equally alarming percentage of antibiotic-resistant strains isolated from invasive infections. Resistance to fluoroquinolones (33.0%) and third-generation cephalosporins (17.4%) are the major problems for E. coli strains. Meanwhile, the percentage of K. pneumoniae strains resistant to third-generation cephalosporins (63.0%) is one of the highest in Europe. Data showing resistance to carbapenems amongst non-fermenting rods, especially A. baumannii (78.2%), are also extremely worrying. The high percentages of MRSA (13.8%) and VRE/GRE (38.5%) strains are also noteworthy.
BSIs caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are unfortunately associated with high mortality and increased costs for the healthcare system [4]. Recent estimates based on the data from EARS-Net show that, each year, more than 670,000 infections occur in the EU/EEA due to bacteria resistant to antibiotics, and that approximately 33,000 patients die as a direct consequence of these infections [5]. The related cost to the healthcare systems of EU/EEA countries is around EUR 1.1 billion [6]. It has been considered that multidirectional activities, including antibiotic stewardship programs, enhanced hygiene, mass media campaigns, and the use of rapid diagnostic tests, can definitely improve the current situation.
Timely and accurate microbiological investigation results help clinicians to select the most appropriate antimicrobials treatment, which is crucial, especially for septic patients. Moreover, it helps to reduce the risk of microorganism transmission and the presence of outbreaks due to bacterial pathogens spread in healthcare facilities [7,8]. A performance of routine methods of microbial ID (identification) and the antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) requires at least 24–48 h. In case of endemic areas for MDR bacteria, the complexity of the algorithm to be used increases, and the determination of the correct antimicrobial requires the addition of further rapid phenotypic tests, able to discriminate the underlying resistance mechanisms. It delays the use of targeted therapy and can result in a substantial increase of patient mortality [7,8].
One of the platforms that can quicken the diagnosis of BSIs is the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (Accelerate Diagnostics, Denver, CO, USA) [9,10]. In Poland, this system has been available since August 2018. It is a new-generation, fully automated device, enabling the ID of the most common bacteria and yeasts responsible for BSIs and AST of the most common bacterial blood pathogens. ID and AST are performed directly from positive blood samples (PBSs). In this system, microbial ID relies on fully automated simultaneous fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based tests, whereas AST assessments are reported as MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) values and are determined by measurement of morpho-kinetic changes in the cell and their growth ability, in the presence of select concentrations of antibiotics. MIC evaluation results are interpreted based on the current version of European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) or Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [10].
Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the APS for rapid laboratory diagnosis of BSIs in a microbiology laboratory of a large centralized university hospital in Polish real-life clinical conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

The study included 45 PBSs (one sample per patient) obtained from patients hospitalized in Antoni Jurasz University Hospital No. 1 in Bydgoszcz, Poland, from September 2019 to March 2021. The blood samples were collected in BD BACTEC™ Plus Aerobic medium, BD BACTEC™ Lytic Anaerobic medium, or BD BACTEC™ Peds Plus medium bottles (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and firstly incubated in the BD BACTEC™ FX continuous blood culture monitoring system (Becton Dickinson) until growth was detected. The time of growth detection was recorded (Supplementary Table S3). PBSs were tested up to date (within 8 h after growth detection) with the APS (Accelerate Diagnostics, Denver, CO, USA) (version 1.4), using the Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC kit (DMIS000125B Blood Culture Kit (1.4.1.1) IVD-CE; Catalog Number: 10102028), according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Supplementary Material Tables S1 and S2). At the same time, every PBS was processed according to the standard workflow of the microbiology laboratory: a Gram-staining, a subculture on a set of solid media, and MALDI-TOF (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) ID. The results of the microorganism ID in MALDI-TOF fulfilled the rigorous acceptance level (an index above 2000).
For AST, the comparator for most combinations of bacteria vs. antibiotic was BD Phoenix™ M50 (Becton Dickinson), using BD Phoenix™ PMIC-88 for Staphylococcus spp. and BD Phoenix™ NMIC-402 for Gram-negative aerobic rods. However, the disc diffusion method (Becton Dickinson) was the comparator for testing Enterococcus spp. with ampicillin, vancomycin, and linezolid, and Staphylococcus spp. with cefoxitin. The microdilution method (MIC COL, DIAGNOSTICS s.r.o.) was the comparator for colistin. The results obtained with standard microbiological laboratory methods were used as the reference comparator for microbial ID and AST. The AST results were interpreted according to the EUCAST (version 12.0 2022) breakpoints [11]. To control the quality of AST, both with standard and APS methods, the following reference strains were used: E. coli ATCC 25922, E. coli ATCC 35218, E. faecalis ATCC 29212, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and S. aureus ATCC 29213. The quality control results were interpreted according to the EUCAST QC (version 12.0 2022) breakpoints [12].
The study was approved by the Bioethical Commission of Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń; Approval Code: KB 554/2019.
The time to APS report and the time to standard microbiological laboratory workflow report were calculated and compared after the growth in the BD BACTEC™ FX was detected (Supplementary Table S3), taking into account the full time needed to perform the tests and issue the results.
To determine the ID accuracy, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated by using the FISH ID probe for the APS and the results were compared to those of the standard microbiological laboratory workflow. The following formulas were used: sensitivity = (100·TP)/(TP + FN); specificity = (100·TN)/(TN + FP), where TP is the true positive, FN is the false negative, TN is the true negative, and FP is the false positive. For microorganism identified by the standard microbiological laboratory workflow, but not by the APS, the isolate was considered a false negative. For microorganisms identified by the APS, but not by the standard microbiological laboratory workflow, the isolate was considered a false positive. The AST results obtained with the application of APS were studied in terms of their % of categorical agreement (CA), defined as a percentage of the results where the resistance category (S—susceptible; I—intermediate; R—resistant) obtained by the APS was consistent with the resistance category derived from the reference method; VME (very major error), defined as a percentage of the results for which the APS reported a category S and the results of the reference method was categorized as R; ME (major error), defined as a percentage of the results where the resistance category reported by the APS was R, while with the reference method—S; and mE (minor error), defined as a percentage of the results with the APS resistance category as I and with the reference method—S or R; or the resistance category reported by the APS was S or R, while the one derived from the reference method was I. According to CLSI [13], the following criteria for comparison of the AST results were used: ≥90% for the CA rate; ≤3% for the ME and VME rates; and ≤10% for the mE rate.

3. Results

In 15 (33.3%) out of 45 PBSs, the APS detected Staphylococcus spp. and determined their AST. In five of them, the system revealed the presence of S. aureus, while in the remaining samples, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) were noted; however, without specification to the species level. In the course of conventional diagnostics, it was found that three of these samples revealed a mixed culture of two CNSs. The time to APS report (TTR) ranged from 6:37 to 6:40 h (Table 1).
In 10 (22.2%) of the PBSs, the APS detected Enterococcus spp., including 8 strains of E. faecium and 2 belonging to E. faecalis. In one sample, the APS revealed alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus spp., without specifying to the species level and omitting an AST evaluation. The TTR ranged from 6:35 to 6:37 h (Table 2).
In 12 (26.7%) samples, the APS detected Gram-negative rods and performed AST accordingly. The APS assigned bacteria to the genus level in eight cases, and to a species level in four of them. The TTR ranged from 6:39 to 7:16 h (Table 3).
In the course of conventional diagnostics, it was found that six (13.3%) of the PBSs were poly-microbial. In these cases, only one out of two or three microorganisms was detected by the APS, and the system assessed AST only for the recognized bacteria (Table 2 and Table 3). There was only one incident where the APS identified two organisms (E. faecium and CNS) in a poly-microbial culture and assessed the AST for both of them (Table 4).
Due to the limitations to identify certain microorganisms using the Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC panel (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2), in three cases the APS was incapable of detection of Clostridium septicum, Moraxella spp., and Bacteroides fragilis. In contrast, in two PBSs, the APS failed to detect E. faecium and E. coli, with the following comment: ‘No ID results reported: too few cells for analysis. Recommend culture due to possibility of one or more organisms being present’ (Table 4).
The overall sensitivity and specificity for bacterial ID (per test sample), considering only on-Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC panel microorganisms, were 78.6% and 100%, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity, based on individual species of microorganisms, were 79.6% and 100%, respectively. However, the sensitivity and specificity, based on each group of microorganisms, were 88.2% and 100% for Gram-positive, 75.0% and 100% for Gram-negative, and 25.0% and 100% for yeasts, respectively.
The total TTR differences between APS and the standard microbiological laboratory workflow are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. When using APS, the total TTR was reduced from 13:34 to 63:47 h compared to the standard microbiological laboratory procedures.
Altogether, in 38 (84.4%) of the samples, the APS performed AST for at least one microorganism. A comparative analysis of AST results obtained with the APS and conventional methods used in our laboratory was carried out (Table 5 and Table 6). For the Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, the CA was 99.0% and 98.3%, respectively. There was one mE for the beta-lactam antibiotics (cefepime vs. P. aeruginosa) and two VMEs for non-beta-lactams (one for gentamicin vs. P. mirabilis and one for vancomycin vs. E. faecium). Due to the low number of category (I) and (R) isolates, respectively, percentages of the mE and VMEs were not calculated. For the beta-lactam antibiotics, CA was 98.8%, whereas for non-beta-lactam antibiotics, CA was 98.4%. Only in the case of gentamicin was the CA, i.e., the resistant category compliance, lower than 90%; it resulted from one difference, when the APS classified P. mirabilis as susceptible to gentamicin, while the BD Phoenix™ M50 system categorized the strain as resistant to this antimicrobial agent.

4. Discussion

Due to the increasing rate of antimicrobial resistance, the susceptibility profile of the pathogens responsible especially for BSIs is relevant data. It allows for a selection of an appropriate antibiotic and avoids side effects resulting from unnecessary or inappropriate antimicrobial therapy. The rate of an inadequate initial antimicrobial therapy (IIAT) is of high relevance for the outcome of patients. The IIAT for a septic shock occurs in about 20% of patients and is associated with a five-fold reduction in a survival rate [7].
The evaluated APS enabled identification of 14 Gram-positive and 12 Gram-negative bacteria species. The advantage of the system is an additional possibility of identifying also C. albicans and C. glabrata. However, it is not possible to determine the drug susceptibility of these yeasts within this system (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2) [10]. The system enables the assessment of susceptibility to 6 and 19 antibiotics in case of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, respectively. The maximum time to ID and AST report, declared by the manufacturer, is 90 min and 5 h, respectively [10]. Moreover, the manufacturer also consecutively improves the assay to increase its relevance to microbiological investigations with respect to its potential future applications.
In our research, for 40 (88.9%) out of the 45 PBSs included into the study, the APS correctly identified microorganisms at the genus or species level. However, taking into account the microorganisms detectable by the APS and including poly-microbial cultures, for 33 (78.6%) out of the 42 PBSs included into our study, agreement on ID compared to the MALDI Biotyper® (Bruker) was found. The ID compliance was slightly higher when calculated based on individual species of microorganisms (79.6%). Other authors obtained higher results consistency in this manner. Comparing the APS with the MALDI Biotyper® (Bruker) and VITEK® MS (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) ID results, the compliance of the ID category was in the range from 87.9% to 97.1% [8,9,14,15,16,17], and 100%, respectively [18]. Thus, the APS was previously assessed as highly specific [19,20]. However, some problems with identifying microorganisms in poly-microbial blood cultures have been previously underlined. In our study, in seven PBSs, the APS identified only one out of two or three microorganisms present in the positive blood culture. Other authors also reported a correct ID only in 3 out of 6 [14], 3 out of 5 [15], 4 out of 7 [16], and 3 out of 24 [21] poly-microbial blood cultures. Taking into account the elevated cost of the test, it is worth it to use the APS for ID directly from the PBSs, but only after their initial analysis of the Gram-stain under a microscope. This approach can exclude the PBSs with the presence of poly-microbial cultures. Another approach would be to perform the direct ID of PBSs by MALDI-TOF MS method prior to APS application, if possible.
According to the CLSI criteria, a commercial AST performance should show at least 90% CA [13]. In the results of the present study, for all but one sample, a 96–100% compliance of the resistance category was achieved, when comparing the AST results obtained with the APS and conventional methods used in our laboratory (depending on the microorganisms: BD Phoenix™ M50 (Becton Dickinson), disc diffusion method, and microdilution method). Only in the case of gentamicin vs. P. mirabilis, the CA, i.e., the resistance category compliance, was lower than 90%. Comparing the results of the AST obtained by other authors [22] using the APS, with the results obtained with the reference method, the compliance of the AST category was found at the level of 97.9% for Gram-positive and 94.3% for Gram-negative bacteria. The APS results compared to other research on AST systems, including MicroScan Walk-Away (Beckman Coulter), VITEK®2 Compact (bioMérieux), and BD Phoenix™ (Becton Dickinson), gave the CA in the AST results ranging from 94.1% to 97.7% [9,15,19,21,23].
The total TTR is a crucial parameter allowing for a rapid switching from an empiric to a targeted antibiotic therapy and positively impact on patients’ outcome. In our study, the TTR of the ID result of the APS ranged from 1:32 to 1:42 h; hence, the time to final report of the AST result ranged from 6:35 to 7:16 h. With using the APS, the total TTR was reduced from 13:34 to even 63:47 h compared to the standard microbiological laboratory workflow. Comparing the APS with other ID and AST systems in terms of total TTR, it was found that microbial ID and AST results in the APS were 9:00 to 41:30 h and 24:15 to 48:15 h earlier than in the other ID and AST systems. It confirms that the APS proceeds the investigation definitely faster than conventional systems for microbial ID and AST, which was previously observed also by other researches [8,9,15,19,20,21,24,25]. Of note, the subject of five mentioned studies was to evaluate the time after which targeted antibiotic therapy was administered to patients [8,24,25,26,27]. With the use of the APS, it was possible to reduce this time by up to 30 h [27], which is of a greatest significance for the patient survival.
The APS is the first platform that delivers both microbial ID and phenotypic AST results with MIC values within 7 h, accelerating appropriate, adequate, and optimal targeted antimicrobial therapy by 1–2 days. This is especially important for septic or critically ill patients with systemic infections. Results from assessing the APS application bring the most benefits to laboratories operating around the clock and to those in which strict cooperation between microbiologists and clinicians is available [7,8,10]. The APS should be considered as a useful device for a rapid BSI laboratory diagnosis. The advantages of this system are as follows: universal panels for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and for Candida spp.; the simplicity to perform the testing; and the relatively large panels of antimicrobials, especially for Gram-negative bacteria. They include also new combinations of antibiotics, e.g., ceftazidime with avibactam, ceftolozane with tazobactam, and other antibiotics crucial for therapy against infections caused by MDR Gram-negative rods (e.g., colistin). Moreover, the advantage of this system is a very short time to perform the determination and obtaining the ID and reporting AST results as MIC values, which is not possible with the application of genetic methods. According to Roth et al. [28], the implementation of a rapid ID and AST method in a microbiology laboratory (including the APS) along with a well-established antimicrobial stewardship program, significantly decreases the length of a patient’s stay in a hospital, broad-spectrum antibiotic consumption, and costs to the healthcare system, which definitely fits into the program of a rational antibiotic consumption policy.
A limitation of this study is the objectively small number of tested samples. Our goal was to study the usefulness of the applied assay on actual clinical samples in real-time experiments and indicate the results of the pilot study that most probably will be continued. We proved that the test can be easily applied for standard use in a microbiology laboratory.

5. Conclusions

The APS is a very useful, especially for the rapid assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria directly from PBSs, offering the greatest potential for microbiology laboratories operating around the clock.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens11121415/s1, Table S1: Gram-positive bacteria and yeasts detectable by the Accelerate Pheno™ system, the corresponding antimicrobials included in their antimicrobial susceptibility testing and selected resistance mechanisms; Table S2: Gram-negative bacteria detectable by the Accelerate Pheno™ system, the corresponding antimicrobials included in their antimicrobial susceptibility testing and selected resistance mechanisms; Table S3: The pre-incubation times of blood samples (n = 45) in BD BACTEC™ FX.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.Z.-W., T.B. and E.G.-K.; methodology, P.Z.-W. and T.B.; software, P.Z.-W. and T.B.; validation, P.Z.-W. and T.B.; formal analysis, P.Z.-W. and T.B.; investigation, P.Z.-W. and T.B.; resources, P.Z.-W.; data curation, P.Z.-W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Z.-W.; writing—review and editing, P.Z.-W., T.B. and E.G.-K.; supervision, P.Z.-W. and E.G.-K.; project administration, E.G.-K.; funding acquisition, E.G.-K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by BioMaxima (Poland), which provided the Accelerate Pheno™ system (Accelerate Diagnostics) and supplied the panels for testing (the Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC kits), and by Nicolaus Copernicus University funds for the basic research activity of the Microbiology Department Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Poland (PDB WF 839).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Bioethical Commission of Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Approval Code: KB 554/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Financially supported by BioMaxima (Poland), which provided the Accelerate Pheno™ system (Accelerate Diagnostics) and supplied panels for testing—the Accelerate PhenoTest™ BC kits. Sponsoring of the participation of the authors of the publication in a scientific conference during which the results of the obtained research were presented.

References

  1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use in European Acute Care Hospitals; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/point-prevalence-survey-healthcare-associated-infections-and-antimicrobial-use-0 (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  2. Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.W.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 801–810. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968574/ (accessed on 27 October 2022). [CrossRef]
  3. Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in Europe 2022-2020 Data. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-europe-2022-2020-data (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  4. Kaye, K.S.; Marchaim, D.; Chen, T.-Y.; Baures, T.; Anderson, D.J.; Choi, Y.; Sloane, R.; Schmader, K.E. Effect of nosocomial bloodstream infections on mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2014, 62, 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Cassini, A.; Högberg, L.D.; Plachouras, D.; Quattrocchi, A.; Hoxha, A.; Simonsen, G.S.; Colomb-Cotinat, M.; Kretzschmar, M.E.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Cecchini, M.; et al. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: A population-level modelling analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling the Burden in the European Union-AMR Insights. Available online: https://www.amr-insights.eu/antimicrobial-resistance-tackling-the-burden-in-the-european-union/ (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  7. Kumar, A.; Ellis, P.; Arabi, Y.; Roberts, D.; Light, B.; Parrillo, J.E.; Dodek, P.; Wood, G.; Kumar, A.; Simon, D.; et al. Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest 2009, 136, 1237–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ehren, K.; Meißner, A.; Jazmati, N.; Wille, J.; Jung, N.; Vehreschild, J.J.; Hellmich, M.; Seifert, H. Clinical impact of rapid species identification from positive blood cultures with same-day phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing on the management and outcome of bloodstream infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marschal, M.; Bachmaier, J.; Autenrieth, I.; Oberhettinger, P.; Willmann, M.; Peter, S. Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno System for fast identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing from positive blood cultures in bloodstream infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 2116–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Fast Antibiotic Susceptibility Results Accelerate Pheno™ System. Available online: https://acceleratediagnostics.com/ (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  11. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters Version 12.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.eucast.org (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  12. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Routine and Extended Internal Quality Control for MIC Determination and Disk Diffusion as Recommended by EUCAST. Version 12.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.eucast.org (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  13. Humphries, R.M.; Ambler, J.; Mitchell, S.L.; Castanheira, M.; Dingle, T.; Hindler, J.A.; Koeth, L.; Sei, K. CLSI methods development and standardization working group of the subcommittee on antimicrobial susceptibility tests. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01934-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Ullberg, M.; Özenci, V. Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria from positive blood cultures using the Accelerate Pheno™ system. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 39, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Descours, G.; Desmurs, L.; Hoang, T.L.T.; Ibranosyan, M.; Baume, M.; Ranc, A.-G.; Fuhrmann, C.; Dauwalder, O.; Salka, W.; Vandenesch, F. Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno™ system for rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative bacteria in bloodstream infections. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2018, 37, 1573–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Giordano, C.; Piccoli, E.; Brucceleri, V.; Barnini, S. A Prospective evaluation of two rapid phenotypical antimicrobial susceptibility technologies for the diagnostic stewardship of sepsis. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 6976923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Socio, G.V.; Belati, A.; Paggi, R.; D’Arpino, A.; Moretti, A.; Allegrucci, F.; Cenci, E.; Francisci, D.; Mencacci, A. Accelerate Pheno™ system in sepsis by Gram-negative pathogens: Four months of hospital experience. New Microbiol. 2020, 43, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Pantel, A.; Monier, J.; Lavigne, J.-P. Performance of the Accelerate Pheno™ system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of a panel of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli directly from positive blood cultures. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 1546–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Charnot-Katsikas, A.; Tesic, V.; Love, N.; Hill, B.; Bethel, C.; Boonlayangoor, S.; Beavis, K.G. Use of the Accelerate Pheno system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of pathogens in positive blood cultures and impact on time to results and workflow. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01166-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Burnham, J.P.; Wallace, M.A.; Fuller, B.M.; Shupe, A.; Burnham, C.-A.D.; Kollef, M.H. Clinical effect of expedited pathogen identification and susceptibility testing for Gram-negative bacteremia and candidemia by use of the Accelerate Pheno™ system. J. Appl. Lab. Med. 2019, 3, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Lutgring, J.D.; Bittencourt, C.; McElvania TeKippe, E.; Cavuoti, D.; Hollaway, R.; Burd, E.M. Evaluation of the Accelerate Pheno system: Results from two academic medical centers. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01672-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Pancholi, P.; Carroll, K.C.; Buchan, B.W.; Chan, R.C.; Dhiman, N.; Ford, B.; Granato, P.A.; Harrington, A.T.; Hernandez, D.R.; Humphries, R.M.; et al. Multicenter evaluation of the Accelerate PhenoTest BC Kit for rapid identification and phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing using morphokinetic cellular analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01329-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Calderaro, A.; Buttrini, M.; Martinelli, M.; Covan, S.; Montecchini, S.; Ruggeri, A.; Arcangeletti, M.C.; De Conto, F.; Chezzi, C. Rapid microbial identification and phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing directly from positive blood cultures: A new platform compared to routine laboratory methods. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 96, 114955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Elliott, G.; Malczynski, M.; Barr, V.O.; Aljefri, D.; Martin, D.; Sutton, S.; Zembower, T.R.; Postelnick, M.; Qi, C. Evaluation of the impact of the Accelerate Pheno™ system on time to result for differing antimicrobial stewardship intervention models in patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infections. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Banerjee, R.; Komarow, L.; Virk, A.; Rajapakse, N.; Schuetz, A.N.; Dylla, B.; Earley, M.; Lok, J.; Kohner, P.; Ihde, S.; et al. Randomized trial evaluating clinical impact of rapid identification and susceptibility testing for Gram-negative bacteremia: RAPIDS-GN. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, e39–e46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Henig, O.; Kaye, K.S.; Chandramohan, S.; Cooper, C.C.; Lephart, P.; Salimnia, H.; Taylor, M.; Pogue, J.M. The hypothetical impact of Accelerate Pheno on time to effective therapy and time to definitive therapy for bloodstream infections due to drug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e01477-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Henig, O.; Cooper, C.C.; Kaye, K.S.; Lephart, P.; Salimnia, H.; Taylor, M.; Hussain, N.; Hussain, Z.; Deeds, K.; Hayat, U.; et al. The hypothetical impact of Accelerate Pheno™ system on time to effective therapy and time to definitive therapy in an institution with an established antimicrobial stewardship programme currently utilizing rapid genotypic organism/resistance marker identification. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, i32–i39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Roth, F.; Leedahl, N.D.; Leedahl, D.D.; Guerrero, D.M. Clinical and financial impact of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing in blood cultures. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part I—Staphylococcus spp., n = 15).
Table 1. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part I—Staphylococcus spp., n = 15).
Test No.UnitID in
MALDI Biotyper
ID in
APS
Time to APS ID
(h:min)
Time to
APS AST
(h:min)
Time to APS Report
(h:min)
The Total Time Difference between
APS and Standard Workflow Report
(d:h:min)
14133/KRCTKARStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus1:335:076:401:3:35
15875/KRCBGERStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus1:335:076:401:9:44
25373/KRCBOUMStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus1:345:056:391:3:33
36677/KRTKARStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus1:335:066:391:10:8
11620/KRTKARStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus1:335:066:390:18:17
24095/KRCTCHIOEStaphylococcus epidermidisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:335:046:370:22:13
24511/KRTOIZ1Staphylococcus epidermidis Staphylococcus haemolyticusCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:345:036:371:0:18
24336/KRTKCHStaphylococcus hominisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:335:056:380:21:8
36558/KRCTOITStaphylococcus epidermidisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:335:046:371:1:34
13938/KRBKCHStaphylococcus epidermidisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:345:046:380:20:12
12307/KRTKARStaphylococcus epidermidis Staphylococcus hominisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:345:036:372:3:53
74534/KRTOITStaphylococcus epidermidis Staphylococcus haemolyticusCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:335:046:371:18:51
74734/KRTNCHStaphylococcus epidermidisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:325:056:370:23:37
53277/KRTOITStaphylococcus epidermidisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:345:046:381:18:43
36558/KRCTOITStaphylococcus epidermidisCoagulase-Negative Staphylococcus1:335:046:370:13:34
1:32–1:345:03–5:076:37–6:400:13:34–2:3:53
CHIOE—Department of General Surgery; GER—Geriatrics Clinic; KAR—Department of Cardiology; KCH—Department of Cardiac Surgery; NCH—Department of Neurosurgery; OIZ1—Isolation (COVID-19) Department No. 1; OUM—Stroke Department; OIT—Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit; KRT—peripheral blood sample; aerobic growth conditions; KRB—peripheral blood sample; anaerobic growth conditions; KRCT—catheterized blood sample; aerobic growth conditions; KRCB—catheterized blood sample; anaerobic growth conditions.
Table 2. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part II—Enterococcus spp., etc., n = 11).
Table 2. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part II—Enterococcus spp., etc., n = 11).
Test No.UnitID in
MALDI Biotyper
ID in APSTime to APS ID
(h:min)
Time to APS AST
(h:min)
Time to APS Report
(h:min)
The Total Time Difference between
APS and Standard Workflow Report
(d:h:min)
14285/KRBOIZ1Enterococcus faeciumEnterococcus faecium1:325:036:351:3:47
11768/KRCBKAREnterococcus faeciumEnterococcus faecium1:335:036:360:20:30
73865/KRTCHIOEEnterococcus faecium
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Enterococcus faecium1:325:036:352:1:4
36510/KRTOITEnterococcus faecium
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Enterococcus faecium1:335:036:361:21:6
30827/KRCBUROEnterococcus faecium
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Candida albicans
Enterococcus faecium1:335:036:363:14:41
16451/KRTOITEnterococcus faeciumEnterococcus faecium1:335:036:360:14:17
15500/KRTKMSEnterococcus faecium
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Candida glabrata
Enterococcus faecium1:325:036:352:11:42
14516/KRBNCHEnterococcus faeciumEnterococcus faecium1:345:026:360:14:30
23589/KRCTOIZ2Enterococcus faecalis
Acinetobacter baumannii
Enterococcus faecalis1:335:036:363:21:22
25159/KRTNCHEnterococcus faecalis isolate#1
Enterococcus faecalis isolate#2
Staphylococcus haemolyticus
Enterococcus faecalis1:345:026:363:3:15
31559/KRCTPHOStreptococcus viridans, α-hemStreptococcus spp.1:37x1:37-
1:32–1:37 5:02–5:036:35–6:370:14:17–3:21:22
CHIOE—Department of General Surgery; KAR—Department of Cardiology; KMS—Department of Forensic Medicine; NCH—Department of Neurosurgery; OIT—Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit; OIZ1—Isolation (COVID-19) Department No. 1; OIZ2—Isolation (COVID-19) Department No. 2; PHO—Department of Pediatrics; Hematology and Oncology; URO—Department of Urology; KRT—peripheral blood sample; growth conditions; KRB—peripheral blood sample; anaerobic growth conditions; KRCT—catheterized blood sample; growth conditions; KRCB—catheterized blood sample; growth conditions.
Table 3. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part III—Gram-negative rods, etc., n = 12).
Table 3. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part III—Gram-negative rods, etc., n = 12).
Test No.UnitID in
MALDI Biotyper
ID in
APS
Time to APS ID
(h:min)
Time to APS AST
(h:min)
Time to APS Report
(h:min)
The Total Time Difference between
APS and Standard Workflow Report
(d:h:min)
35807/KRTKAREnterobacter cloacaeEnterobacter spp.1:345:367:001:1:35
66588/KRTCHIOEKlebsiella oxytocaKlebsiella spp.1:425:347:160:23:21
23555/KRBKARKlebsiella pneumoniaeKlebsiella spp.1:345:256:590:21:27
17822/KRTNEFKlebsiella pneumoniaeKlebsiella spp.1:335:266:590:23:12
17244/KRTKARKlebsiella pneumoniaeKlebsiella spp.1:335:347:071:0:31
17213/KRTOITKlebsiella pneumoniaeKlebsiella spp.1:345:337:071:10:00
15007/KRCTCHIOEKlebsiella pneumoniae
Candida albicans
Klebsiella spp.1:345:367:000:22:14
24341/KRTNCHProteus mirabilisProteus spp.1:335:266:590:21:29
11542/KRCTOITPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas aeruginosa1:335:226:550:16:00
16380/KRTPHOTSPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas aeruginosa1:335:236:560:22:30
14338/KRTOITPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas aeruginosa1:335:236:560:22:30
25059/KRTOIZ2Acinetobacter baumanniiAcinetobacter baumannii1:325:076:392:15:47
1:32–1:425:07–5:366:39–7:160:16:00–2:15:47
CHIOE—Department of General Surgery; KAR—Department of Cardiology; NCH—Department of Neurosurgery; NEF—Department of Nephrology; OIT—Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit; OIZ2—Isolation (COVID-19) Department No. 2; PHOTS—Bone Marrow Transplantation Department; KRT—peripheral blood sample; aerobic growth conditions; KRB—peripheral blood sample; anaerobic growth conditions; KRCT—catheterized blood sample; aerobic growth conditions.
Table 4. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part IV—remaining, n = 5).
Table 4. The time to report of the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results of the Accelerate Pheno™ system (APS) (part IV—remaining, n = 5).
Test No.UnitID in
MALDI Biotyper
ID in APSTime to APS ID
(h:min)
Time to APS AST
(h:min)
Time to APS Report
(h:min)
The Time Difference between
APS and Standard Workflow Report
(d:h:min)
24999/KRCTOITEnterococcus faecium
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Enterococcus faecium
Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcus
1:335:046:370:17:11
12658/KRCTNEFCandida glabrataCandida glabrata1:38---
12878/KRBPHOClostridium septicum-----
13545/KRCTPHOMoraxellaosloensis-----
74436/KRCTPHOEnterococcus faecium GRE-----
66751/KRTUROEscherichia coli-----
73982/KRBUROBacteroides fragilis-----
‘-’—lack of results in the APS; NEF—Department of Nephrology; OIT—Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit; PHO—Department of Pediatrics; Hematology and Oncology; URO—Department of Urology; KRT—peripheral blood sample; aerobic growth conditions; KRB—peripheral blood sample; anaerobic growth conditions; KRCT—catheterized blood sample; aerobic growth conditions; GRE—glycopeptide-resistant enterococci.
Table 5. Categorical agreement on bacterial susceptibility to beta-lactams determined by the Accelerate Pheno™ and BD Phoenix™ M50 systems, disc diffusion method, or microdilution method.
Table 5. Categorical agreement on bacterial susceptibility to beta-lactams determined by the Accelerate Pheno™ and BD Phoenix™ M50 systems, disc diffusion method, or microdilution method.
Antimicrobial AgentCAVMEMEmE
Ampicillin10/10000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid6/600 (-) **
100%0.0%0.0%
Piperacillin/tazobactam10/10000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cefoxitin14/14---
100%---
Ceftazidime10/10000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Ceftriaxone5/5000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cefepime9/10001/2
90.0%0.0%0.0% (-) ***
Ceftaroline5/5 *000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Meropenem11/11000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Ertapenem7/700 (-) **
100%0.0%0.0%
Overall87/88 (98.8%)001
* Results for Staphylococcus aureus only; (-) ** European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing does not provide (I) category for the tested genus/species of bacteria; (-) *** due to the low number of category (I) isolates, percentage was not calculated; CA—% categorical agreement; VME—% very major error; ME—% major error; mE—% minor error.
Table 6. Categorical agreement on bacterial susceptibility to non-beta-lactams determined by the Accelerate Pheno™ and BD Phoenix™ M50 systems, disc diffusion method, or microdilution method.
Table 6. Categorical agreement on bacterial susceptibility to non-beta-lactams determined by the Accelerate Pheno™ and BD Phoenix™ M50 systems, disc diffusion method, or microdilution method.
Antimicrobial AgentCAVMEMEmE
Gentamicin6/71/100
86.0% (-) ***0.0%0.0%
Amikacin11/1100 (-) **
100%0.0%0.0%
Tobramycin10/10000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Ciprofloxacin11/1100 (-) **
100%0.0%0.0%
Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole13/13000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Vancomycin24/251/50 (-) **
96.0% (-) ***0.0%
Daptomycin14/14000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Linezolid25/2500 (-) **
100%0.0%0.0%
Colistin11/11000
100%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Overall125/127 (98.4%)200
(-) ** European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing does not provide (I) category for the tested genus/species of bacteria; (-) *** due to the low number of category (R) isolates, percentage was not calculated; CA—% categorical agreement; VME—% very major error; ME—% major error; mE—% minor error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zalas-Więcek, P.; Bogiel, T.; Gospodarek-Komkowska, E. The Accelerate Pheno™ System—A New Tool in Microbiological Diagnostics of Bloodstream Infections: A Pilot Study from Poland. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121415

AMA Style

Zalas-Więcek P, Bogiel T, Gospodarek-Komkowska E. The Accelerate Pheno™ System—A New Tool in Microbiological Diagnostics of Bloodstream Infections: A Pilot Study from Poland. Pathogens. 2022; 11(12):1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121415

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zalas-Więcek, Patrycja, Tomasz Bogiel, and Eugenia Gospodarek-Komkowska. 2022. "The Accelerate Pheno™ System—A New Tool in Microbiological Diagnostics of Bloodstream Infections: A Pilot Study from Poland" Pathogens 11, no. 12: 1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121415

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop