Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Reporting of Antimicrobial Resistance from Blood Cultures, an Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Survey Summary: Resistance Marker Reporting Practices from Positive Blood Cultures.
Simner, Patricia J; Dien Bard, Jennifer; Doern, Christopher; Kristie Johnson, J; Westblade, Lars; Yenokyan, Gayane; Patel, Robin; Hanson, Kimberly E.
Afiliación
  • Simner PJ; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Dien Bard J; Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Doern C; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  • Kristie Johnson J; Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
  • Westblade L; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Yenokyan G; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
  • Patel R; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
  • Hanson KE; Johns Hopkins Biostatistics Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(9): 1550-1558, 2023 05 03.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36533704
BACKGROUND: We assessed how laboratories use and handle reporting of results of rapid diagnostics performed on positive blood culture broths, with a focus on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) markers. METHODS: A survey assembled by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Diagnostics Committee was circulated from December 2020 to May 2021. The survey was sent to local hospitals, shared on the ClinMicroNet and Division C listservs, and included in a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey. RESULTS: Ninety-six laboratories of various sizes across the United States (95%) and outside of the United States (5%) participated. Of the laboratories that had at least 1 rapid diagnostic in place (94%), significant heterogeneity in methods used and reporting practices was found across community (52%) and academic (40%) laboratories serving hospitals of various sizes. Respondents had implemented 1 to 6 different panels/platforms for a total of 31 permutations. Methods of reporting rapid organism identification and AMR results varied from listing all targets as "detected"/"not detected" (16-22%) without interpretive guidance, to interpreting results (23-42%), or providing therapeutic guidance comments to patient-facing healthcare teams (3-17%). CONCLUSIONS: Current approaches to reporting molecular AMR test results from positive blood culture vary significantly across clinical laboratories. Providing interpretative comments with therapeutic guidance alongside results reported may assist clinicians who are not well-versed in genetic mechanisms of AMR. However, this is currently not being done in all clinical laboratories. Standardized strategies for AMR gene result reporting are needed.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana / Antibacterianos Tipo de estudio: Guideline Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Clin Infect Dis Asunto de la revista: DOENCAS TRANSMISSIVEIS Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana / Antibacterianos Tipo de estudio: Guideline Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Clin Infect Dis Asunto de la revista: DOENCAS TRANSMISSIVEIS Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos