Evaluation of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel for Detecting Bacterial Etiological Agents of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections in an Oncologic Hospital. Comparison with Conventional Culture Method
, e | 16 dic 2023
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Article Category: ORIGINAL PAPER
Pubblicato online: 16 dic 2023
Pagine: 391 - 398
Ricevuto: 26 mag 2023
Accettato: 20 ago 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2023-035
Parole chiave
© 2023 Maria Teresa Szymankiewicz et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Comparison of bacteria identified by the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel (PNP) and the conventional quantitative culture methods (CM) in 27 bacteriologically positive BAL samples.
| Bacterium | Conventional quantitative culture methods (CM) | BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia |
|---|---|---|
| Total number of bacteria detected |
Total number of bacteria detected | |
| 1 (0) | 2 | |
| 7 (4) | 8 | |
| 4 (3) | 4 | |
| 1 (1) | 1 | |
| 3 (2) | 3 | |
| 0 (0) | 1 | |
| 3 (1) | 3 | |
| 5 (3) | 5 | |
| 0 (0) | 1 | |
| 9 (4) | 10 | |
| 1 (1) | 1 | |
| 2 (2) | 3 | |
| Total number | 36 (21) | 42 |
| Resistance genes | ||
| CTX-M | 1 |
1 |
| IMP | 0 | 0 |
| KPC | 0 | 0 |
| NDM | 0 | 0 |
| VIM | 0 | 0 |
| OXA-48-like | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | |
| Total number | 1 | 1 |
Performance of quantitative growth of fungi in conventional quantitative culture method (CM).
| Name of fungi | Quantity (CFU/ml) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 102-103 | 103-104 | 104-105 | > 105 | |
| 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 8 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Kluyveromyces marxianus (formerly |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pichia kudriavzevii (formerly |
0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total number | 23 | 19 | 1 | 0 |
Comparison of conventional quantitative culture method (CM) and the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel (PNP). Overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values.
| Methods | Samples | TP | FP | FN | TN | SENS | SP | ACC | PPV | NPV | FPR | FNR | AUC | SE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PNP vs. comb | BAL | 27 | 0 | 1 | 51 | 0.964 | 1.000 | 0.987 | 1.000 | 0.981 | 0 | 0.036 | 0.982 | 0.02 | |
| CM vs. comb | BAL | 17 | 0 | 11 | 51 | 0.607 | 1.000 | 0.861 | 1.000 | 0.823 | 0.000 | 0.393 | 0.804 | 0.06 | |
| CM vs. PNP | BAL | 16 | 1 | 11 | 51 | 0.593 | 0.981 | 0.848 | 0.941 | 0.823 | 0.019 | 0.407 | 0.787 | 0.062 |