4.6 Article

T2Bacteria and T2Resistance Assays in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Descriptive Experience

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11121823

关键词

T2; rapid tests; diagnosis; sepsis; septic shock; BSI; antimicrobial resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study analyzed the impact of T2Bacteria and T2Resistance tests on the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis in critically ill patients. The results showed that these tests can help identify causative agents and resistance determinants in advance and influence treatment decisions.
The use of rapid molecular tests may anticipate the identification of causative agents and resistance determinants in the blood of critically ill patients with sepsis. From April to December 2021, all intensive care unit patients with sepsis or septic shock who were tested with the T2Bacteria and T2Resistance assays were included in a retrospective, single center study. The primary descriptive endpoints were results of rapid molecular tests and concomitant blood cultures. Overall, 38 combinations of T2Bacteria and T2Resistance tests were performed. One or more causative agent(s) were identified by the T2Bacteria assay in 26% of episodes (10/38), whereas negative and invalid results were obtained in 66% (25/38) and 8% (3/38) of episodes, respectively. The same pathogen detected by the T2Bacteria test grew from blood cultures in 30% of cases (3/10). One or more determinant(s) of resistance were identified by the T2Resistance assay in 11% of episodes (4/38). Changes in therapy based on T2Bacteria and/or T2Resistance results occurred in 21% of episodes (8/38). In conclusion, T2Bacteria/T2Resistance results can influence early treatment decisions in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock in real-life practice. Large, controlled studies remain necessary to confirm a favorable impact on patients' outcomes and antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据