Accuracy of Two Direct Antibiotic-Susceptibility Tests and Their Impact on the Optimal Treatment of

Background: Rapid pathogen identification and antibiotic-susceptibility tests (ASTs) are important for treating bloodstream infections. We compared the performance of the QMAC-dRAST and BD Phoenix M50 direct AST (dPhoenix) systems using bacterial pellets prepared from positive blood culture broth and evaluated their impact on treatment modification. Methods: Direct AST results for 106 Enterobacterales isolates were retrospectively reviewed. Conventional broth microdilution was used to calculate categorical agreement (CA), very major error (VME), major error (ME), and minor error (mE). For isolates showing high VMEs in both methods, supplementary tests were performed. Clinical impact was evaluated by calculating the time required to obtain AST results (time-to-result) and observing changes in antibiotics prescribed after performing ASTs. Results: Both systems showed acceptable overall CA, VME, ME, and mE values (QMAC-dRAST: 93.6%, 1.6%, 0.9%, and 5.3%, respectively; dPhoenix: 93.1%, 0.9%, 0.6%, and 6.2%, respectively). Piperacillin-tazobactam showed high VMEs with QMAC-dRAST (4/20, 20.0%) and dPhoenix (3/20, 15.0%). Colony AST on 13 isolates revealed that QMAC-dRAST testing yielded lower minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for piperacillin-tazobactam with three isolates, whereas dPhoenix testing yielded higher MICs with two isolates and lower MICs with two isolates. The average time-to-result was 20.8 hr and 30.1 hr for QMAC-dRAST and dPhoenix, respectively ( Conclusions: The QMAC-dRAST and dPhoenix systems provided reliable AST results with a short time-to-result. However, we recommend performing complementary tests, such as the disk diffusion test, for piperacillin-tazobactam.