It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
In 2016, our academic medical center implemented the BioFire® FilmArray® Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel (MEP), which detects 14 viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens. Institutional guidelines recommended the test be used in nonimmunocompromised patients age ≥2 years only if the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) white blood cell (WBC) count was >10 cells/mm3.
Methods
We reviewed all MEP performed at our institution over 2 years (January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018). We collected CSF WBC count, protein, and glucose; MEP results; CSF culture results; and demographics. We excluded children age <2 years, immunocompromised patients, those without a CSF WBC count, and duplicate tests during the same illness.
Results
Of 453 patients, 311 met inclusion criteria. The median age was 51, 51% male. Median CSF indices: WBC/mm3 = 4, protein = 57 mg/dL, glucose = 66 mg/dL. MEP positivity rate = 12% (37/311): viruses (29/37), bacteria (7/37), and fungi (1/37). Positive bacterial/fungal MEP results compared with CSF culture are summarized in Table 1. No clinically significant discordant negative MEP results occurred compared with CSF culture, cryptococcal antigen, or other viral PCR testing. Of the 311 patients, 184 (59%) had ≤10 CSF WBC/mm3. Of these, 4 had positive MEP results: 1 enterovirus, 1 human herpes virus 6 (HHV-6) and 2 varicella zoster virus (VZV). The HHV-6 was judged clinically insignificant. The 2 VZV cases had concomitant shingles and were already on acyclovir. No clinically significant MEP results occurred in 110/311 (35%) patients with ≤ 2 CSF WBC/mm3.
Conclusion
In nonimmunocompromised patients, age ≥ 2, with ≤ 10 CSF WBC/mm3 on lumbar puncture, positive MEP results were rare and the clinical significance of the 4 positives was debatable. A hard-stop restriction in this setting could have reduced overall use by up to 59% and resulted in significant cost savings. Lower CSF WBC/mm3 cut-offs could be considered and still improve MEP utilization.
Disclosures
All Authors: No reported Disclosures.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Nebraska Medical Center, Lincoln, Nebraska