There are numerical errors in the first and penultimate sentences of the second paragraph of the Results under the subheading “Rapid identification and susceptibility test performances.” The correct paragraph is: βLT performed on 164 BSI (P1 and P2 combined) yielded 24 positive, 139 negative and 1 uninterpretable test result due to an incoherent color change of the chromogenic test. All positive βLT results were found in non-natural AmpC EB isolates displaying third generation cephalosporin resistance by complete AST results and subsequently confirmed as ESBL producers. In 7 cases, βLT yielded false-negative results since complete AST and molecular testing identified 6 AmpC producing Escherichia coli and 1 VIM metallo-beta-lactamase-producing P. aeruginosa, all resistant to third generation cephalosporin. Globally, sensitivity and specificity of βLT were respectively 77.4% and 100%. No erroneous or uninterpretable results were observed with PBP2a testing. Performed on 25 S. aureus BSI in P1 and P2, PBP2a was able to detect all 3 MRSA strains (sensitivity and specificity of 100%). Ultimately, 8 BSI (6 in P1 and 2 in P2) were discarded from outcome analysis due to erroneous/uninterpretable rapid test results.
Tables 1 and 2 appear incorrectly in the published article. Please see the correct Tables 1 and 2 and their captions here.
Table 1. Distribution of microorganisms and main resistances of all bloodstream infections across the three study periods.
3GC, third generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime); AST, antimicrobial susceptibility testing; BSI, bloodstream infection; carbapenem (imipenem, meropenem); ID, identification; P0, pre-intervention period; P1, intervention period 1; P2, intervention period 2. Natural AmpC producers identified during the study periods: Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter cloacae, Hafnia alvei, Serratia marcescens. Non-natural AmpC producers identified during the study periods: Citrobacter koseri, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Salmonella spp.
| Microorganism Resistance | P0 | P1 | P2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n BSI (%) | n BSI (%) | n BSI | n BSI | n BSI (%) | n BSI | n BSI | |
| final outcome analysis | final outcome analysis | with failed ID | with failed partial AST | final outcome analysis | with failed ID | with failed partial AST | |
| Gram-positive bacteria | 50 (37.3) | 40 (35.7) | 8 | 0 | 44 (28.6) | 7 | 0 |
| Staphylococci | 25 | 22 | 3 | 0 | 24 | 2 | 0 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 14 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| methicillin | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 2 | - | - |
| Coagulase negative Staphylococci | 11 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 |
| Enterococci | 12 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
| Streptococci | 9 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 0 |
| Other Gram-positive bacteria | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 77 (57.5) | 71 (63.4) | 1 | 6 | 107 (69.5) | 2 | 2 |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 71 | 63 | 0 | 5 | 103 | 1 | 2 |
| natural AmpC producers | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| 3GC | 2 | 1 | - | - | 4 | - | - |
| carbapenem | 0 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - |
| non-natural AmpC producers | 66 | 57 | 0 | 5 | 92 | 1 | 2 |
| 3GC | 10 | 6 | - | 5 | 18 | 0 | 2 |
| carbapenem | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non fermenters | 6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 3GC | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | - |
| carbapenem | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | - |
| Other non fermenters | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Other Gram-negative bacteria | 0 | 2 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anaerobes | 6 (4.5) | 0 (0.0) | 6 | 0 | 2 (1.3) | 6 | 0 |
| Yeast | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.9) | 2 | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 3 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 134 (100) | 112 (100) | 17 | 6 | 154 (100) | 18 | 2 |
Table 2. Time to identification and time to partial/complete susceptibility results of all bloodstream infections during pre-intervention and intervention period 1 and 2.
| Time to identification | |||
| Phase | Method | BSI (n) | Mean time to ID (hours) |
| P0 | TOTAL | 134 | 28.3 |
| Subculture MALDI-TOF MS | 134 | 28.3 | |
| Early MALDI-TOF MS | - | - | |
| Direct MALDI-TOF MS | - | - | |
| P1 | TOTAL | 112 | 10.2 |
| Subculture MALDI-TOF MS | 23 | 15.9 | |
| Early MALDI-TOF MS | 65 | 10.6 | |
| Direct MALDI-TOF MS | 24 | 3.6 | |
| P2 | TOTAL | 154 | 10.8 |
| Subculture MALDI-TOF MS | 32 | 17.1 | |
| Early MALDI-TOF MS | 96 | 10.7 | |
| Direct MALDI-TOF MS | 26 | 4.0 | |
| Time to complete susceptibility result | |||
| Phase | Method | BSI (n) | Mean time to complete AST result (hours) |
| P0 | TOTAL | 134 | 44.7 |
| Phoenix from subculture | 58 | 46.9 | |
| Phoenix from young subculture | - | - | |
| Direct Phoenix | 48 | 28.3 | |
| Manual testing from subculture | 28 | 68.3 | |
| Manuel testing from young subculture | - | - | |
| P1 | TOTAL | 112 | 32.4 |
| Phoenix from subculture | 28 | 41.2 | |
| Phoenix from young subculture | 23 | 32.2 | |
| Direct Phoenix | 45 | 25.6 | |
| Manual testing from subculture | 7 | 49.1 | |
| Manuel testing from young subculture | 9 | 27.3 | |
| P2 | TOTAL | 154 | 32.6 |
| Phoenix from subculture | 34 | 41.6 | |
| Phoenix from young subculture | 81 | 29.9 | |
| Direct Phoenix | 22 | 22.2 | |
| Manual testing from subculture | 8 | 52.2 | |
| Manuel testing from young subculture | 9 | 30.9 | |
| Time to partial susceptibility result | |||
| Phase | Method | BSI (n) | Mean time to partial susceptibility testing result (hours) |
| P1 | TOTAL | 72 | 11.8 |
| Culture βLT | 20 | 17.9 | |
| Young subculture βLT | 29 | 11.2 | |
| Direct βLT | 12 | 3.7 | |
| Culture PBP2a | 3 | 15.3 | |
| Young subculture PBP2a | 6 | 12 | |
| Direct PBP2a | 2 | 2 | |
| P2 | TOTAL | 109 | 11.7 |
| Culture βLT | 29 | 16.8 | |
| Young subculture βLT | 51 | 11.1 | |
| Direct βLT | 15 | 3.6 | |
| Culture PBP2a | 4 | 20.2 | |
| Young subculture PBP2a | 9 | 8.8 | |
| Direct PBP2a | 1 | 6 | |
Reference
- 1.Verroken A, Defourny L, le Polain de Waroux O, Belkhir L, Laterre P-F, Delmée M, et al. (2016) Clinical Impact of MALDI-TOF MS Identification and Rapid Susceptibility Testing on Adequate Antimicrobial Treatment in Sepsis with Positive Blood Cultures. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0156299 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
