English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Blood stream infections pose a major challenge for clinicians as the immediate application of an appropriate antibiotic treatment is the vital factor to safe the patients' lives. This preliminary study compares three different systems promising fast pathogen identification and susceptibility testing in comparison to conventional blood culture (BC): (i) the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing protocol according to EUCAST in combination with the Sepsityper ®  kit (sRAST), (ii) the direct inoculation method on the VITEK ® 2 system (dVIT) and (iii) testing with the Accelerate Pheno ®  system (AccPh). All methods were assessed in terms of accuracy, time to result and usability. Twenty‐three BC samples obtained from patients suffering from proven sepsis were analysed in detail. Pathogen identification was successful in 95·6, 91·3 and 91·3% in sRAST, dVIT and AccPh, respectively. Categorical agreement in antimicrobial susceptibility testing was 89·5, 96 and 96·6%, respectively. Time to result from sample entry to reporting ranged from an average of 4·6 h for sRAST and 6·9 h for AccPh to 10·6 h for dVIT. These results imply a significant shortening of reporting times at considerably high agreement rates for these new diagnostic approaches.

letters in applied microbiology

Comparison of novel approaches for expedited pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing against routine blood culture diagnostics