BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel and Clinical Usefulness: A Systematic Review
Introduction: In the critical care of septic patients, timely and accurate diagnosis is paramount. Molecular diagnostic studies that offer rapid and precise results are lacking. The BioFire blood culture identification (BCID) panel, a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, enables earl...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | Pediatric Infectious Disease |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.pidjournal.com/doi/PID/pdf/10.5005/jp-journals-10081-1419 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Introduction: In the critical care of septic patients, timely and accurate diagnosis is paramount. Molecular diagnostic studies that offer rapid and precise results are lacking. The BioFire blood culture identification (BCID) panel, a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, enables earlier species identification, potentially influencing clinical decision-making.
Materials and methods: This systematic review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, utilizing online databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar to assess the clinical utility of the BioFire BCID panel. A total of 654 articles were initially identified, narrowed down to 20 relevant articles after eliminating duplicates and less pertinent ones. A total of 11 articles were meticulously reviewed and analyzed.
Results and discussion: BioFire demonstrated a remarkable ability to identify organisms within 9.5 hours, significantly faster than conventional methods taking around 16 hours. In approximately one-third to one-fourth of cases, the BCID panel contributed to earlier decision-making. The available evidence suggests that the BCID panel substantially reduces the time needed for optimal antibiotic administration and enhances the accuracy of empirical antibiotic selection. Despite its cost, the statistical utilization of the BCID panel can render it a cost-effective investigation. However, there is a risk of missing organisms not covered by the panel, emphasizing the need for increased awareness among physicians regarding the panel's limitations.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the judicious use of the BCID panel, coupled with background knowledge, facilitates early decision-making in antibiotic selection. This tool proves valuable for antibiotic stewardship, aiding in the cessation of unnecessary antibiotic use. Increased physician awareness and proper utilization are crucial for maximizing the potential benefits of the BioFire BCID panel. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2582-4988 |