Observational studyInfection2026
Clinical impact of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing on empirical therapy in bloodstream infections: a real-world observational study.
Observational study in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed the impact of EUCAST's Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST) on empirical therapy and its clinical usability in routine bloodstream infection management.
methodsThis retrospective single-center, observational study compared two four-month periods before and after RAST implementation (Feb-May 2023 vs. Feb-May 2024) at Oldenburg Medical Center. Patients with monomicrobial bloodstream infections due to Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, or Acinetobacter baumannii were included. PRIMARY OUTCOME: duration of empirical antimicrobial therapy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: turnaround time and categorical agreement between RAST with VITEK 2, including major errors (ME) and very major errors (VME). Surrogate-based interpretation was used for ATU results, particularly for piperacillin-tazobactam.
resultsIn total 126 patients were included (66 in 2023, 60 in 2024). After RAST, empirical therapy duration was significantly shorter (40.5 h vs. 73.3 h, p < 0.001). Median time to RAST result was 15.8 h, significantly shorter than by VITEK 2 (33.9 h, p < 0.0001), reducing time to first susceptibility result by 9.6 h (p < 0.00001). Concordance with VITEK 2 was excellent: 100% for cefotaxime, meropenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam, 96.4% for ceftazidime, 95.2% for ampicillin. ATU results occurred mainly for piperacillin-tazobactam and were partly resolved through surrogate-based interpretation.
conclusionRAST significantly shortened empirical therapy duration and accelerated susceptibility reporting with high agreement to VITEK 2. However, antibiotic-specific uncertainty and incomplete translation of early results into therapeutic action indicate that the clinical impact of RAST depends on structured interpretation and integration into antimicrobial stewardship workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.