Comparison of 3 diagnostic platforms for identification of bacteria and yeast from positive blood culture bottles

Managing bloodstream infections requires fast and accurate diagnostics. Culture-based diagnostic methods for identification from positive blood culture require 24-hour subculture, potentially delaying time to appropriate therapy. Positive blood cultures were collected (n = 301) from September 2021 to August 2022 at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Platforms compared were BioFire & REG; BCID2, Sepsityper & REG;, and shortterm culture. For monomicrobial cultures, FilmArray & REG; BCID2 identified 88.3% (241/273) of pathogens. Rapid Sepsityper & REG; identified 76.9% (210/273) of pathogens. Sepsityper & REG; extraction identified 82.4% (225/273) of pathogens. Short-term culture identified 83.5% (228/273) of pathogens. For polymicrobial cultures, Sepsityper & REG;, short-term culture, and BioFire & REG; BCID2 had complete identifications at 10.7% (3/28), 0%, and 92.9% (26/28), respectively. Time-to-results for Rapid Sepsityper & REG;, Sepsityper & REG; extraction, BioFire & REG; BCID2, and Short-term culture were 35, 52, 65, and 306 minutes, respectively. Performance of these platforms can reduce time-to-results and may help effectively treat bloodstream infections faster. Accuracy, time-to-result, and hands-on time are important factors when evaluation diagnostic platforms.& COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)