News

A 20-year-old patient with a history of lupus presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of T2Bacteria’s rapid bacterial species identification, which enabled early identification of the causative pathogen in a critically ill, immunocompromised patient. Bacterial infections commonly occur following the successful treatment of viral infections.  These infections are often missed due to prior antimicrobial use, especially in at-risk patient populations, leading to treatment delays and negative clinical outcomes.

Presentation

A 20-year-old patient with a history of lupus presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath. They had recently recovered from influenza and were otherwise asymptomatic. The patient did not have a previous history of infections, but due to severe shortness of breath of uncertain etiology, was admitted. The patient’s condition worsened, leading to intubation and transfer to the intensive care unit overnight.

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Day 1: The patient was started on ceftriaxone and azithromycin to cover for possible pneumonia due to rapid deterioration upon admission to the ICU.
Day 2: Due to the lack of clinical improvement,  the intensivist ordered a T2Bacteria Panel and blood cultures, as well as respiratory cultures.

T2Bacteria Result

Positive for P. aeruginosa

Blood Culture

Negative

Respiratory Culture

Positive for P. aeruginosa (36 hours after T2Bacteria result)

Hospital Course and Decision Making Based on the T2Bacteria Result

Based on the T2Bacteria result, the patient was started on meropenem to cover P. aeruginosa and the ceftriaxone was discontinued. The patient began to improve on Day 3 and continued to improve slowly over the remainder of the week. The patient was discharged on Day 7 in stable condition.

A 67-year-old patient had experienced infections, including multi-drug resistant pneumonia, sepsis, and C. difficile colitis during admission.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of T2Candida’s rapid fungal species identification, which allowed for the continuation of appropriate antifungal therapy as well as the discontinuation of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, resulting in clinical improvement.

Presentation

A 67-year-old patient with a history of ALS and chronic respiratory failure was being managed at a long-term acute care (LTAC) facility for the last five months. The patient had experienced infections, including multi-drug resistant pneumonia, sepsis, and C. difficile colitis during admission.

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Day 1: An infectious disease (ID) physician was called early morning because the patient was experiencing a new symptom of hypothermia. Multiple cultures were obtained, and the patient was started on empiric antibiotic treatment with IV vancomycin, meropenem, polymyxin B, and anidulafungin.

Day 2: The stewardship team recommended that anidulafungin be changed to fluconazole. The ID physician ordered a T2Candida Panel and continued anidulafungin until the results were available.

T2Candida Result

Positive for C. glabrata/C. kruseii.

Fungal Culture Result

no growth reported

Hospital Course and Decision Making Based on the T2Candida Result

On the third day, based on the T2Candida Panel results that were positive for C. glabrata/C. krusei– anidulafungin was continued. On day 5, meropenem and polymyxin B treatment were discontinued, and on day 6, vancomycin was discontinued.

The patient improved and remained off of systemic antibiotic treatment following this episode of fungal sepsis. The patient was transferred in stable medical condition to a subacute facility.

An elderly patient presented to the ED with a day-long history of fever, shaking, suprapubic pain, vomiting, and diarrhea

Discussion

This case highlights not only T2Bacteria’s ability of rapid identification but also the capability to detect the causative organism and use the result to de-escalate therapy.

Presentation

An elderly patient presented to the ED with a day-long history of fever, shaking, suprapubic pain, vomiting, and diarrhea.  A urinalysis and urine culture were ordered.  The patient was diagnosed with gastroenteritis, given antiemetics, and subsequently sent home. The following morning the urine culture resulted, growing a Gram-negative rod, and the patient was called to return.  Once they returned, they stated they were feeling slightly worse and also had a low-grade fever, elevated heart rate, and a WBC of 13.6.  A set of blood cultures and a T2Bacteria were drawn, and the patient was transferred to the floor.

Patient Selection Criteria

A septic patient presenting in the Emergency Department

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Diagnosis

Suspected infection r/o urinary or abdominal infection as the source

Empiric Therapy

The patient was started on levofloxacin

T2Bacteria Panel Result

Positive for E. coli

Blood Culture Result

Negative to date

Urine Cultures

Positive for E.coli

Hospital Course and Decision Making Based on the T2Bacteria Result

Once the patient was transferred to the floor, the T2Bacteria turned positive for E.coli. Given that the source was likely genitourinary, the clinicians utilized the T2Bacteria result to identify the specific organism; and based on the signs and symptoms of a UTI, therapy was changed to ceftriaxone.  The change was made to comply with the FDA’s recommendations for the treatment of a UTI but also to avoid complications, which are known to occur in elderly patients with the use of fluoroquinolones for UTIs.  The patient vastly improved and was discharged two days after admission with oral antibiotics to finish their course of therapy.

An elderly patient presented to the ED with nausea, myalgia, and insomnia.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of the T2Bacteria Panel’s ability to provide species identification in the presence of antimicrobial therapy rapidly.  Using T2Bacteria enabled the identification of E.coli in a patient on inadequate therapy for a urinary tract infection (UTI).

Presentation

An elderly patient presented to the ED with nausea, myalgia, and insomnia. The patient had seen their primary care provider earlier in the day and was given a three-day course of antibiotics for a suspected UTI.  Once in the ED, the patient received IV fluids and antiemetics. At that time, blood cultures and a T2Bacteria Panel were drawn. The patient began to feel better a short time later and was discharged home. They were believed to have had a viral syndrome and were told to stop taking the antibiotics.

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

The patient was on an oral course of antimicrobials for a suspected UTI but was told to discontinue them after an ED visit.

T2Bacteria Panel Result

Positive for E.coli

Blood Cultures

No growth

Urine Cultures

No growth

Hospital course and decision making based on the T2Bacteria Panel result

After the patient was discharged, the T2Bacteria resulted and was positive for E.coli.  The patient was called but did not return the phone call until the next day.  Upon returning the call, they stated that they were feeling worse and were asked to return to the ED at that time.  The patient was started on IV ceftriaxone upon admission and transferred to the floor.  Blood cultures and urine cultures remained negative to date.

In this case, T2Bacteria picked up the E.coli infection from the suspected genitourinary infection, but it was never detected in blood or urine culture due to the previous administration of antimicrobials.  Approximately 36 hours later, the patient was discharged and sent home on oral antimicrobials to complete a standard course of therapy.

A patient was admitted with a two-day history of right lower quadrant pain, fever, and vomiting

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of rapid species identification with the T2Bacteria Panel and the potential prevention of additional sequelae with a premature discharge from the ED.

Presentation

An elderly patient was admitted with a two-day history of right lower quadrant pain, fever, and vomiting.   A set of blood cultures and a T2Bacteria were drawn.

The patient received a fluid bolus and empiric antibiotics and started to stabilize, tolerating, orals, and was asking to go home.  The patient was discharged after being in the ED for approximately 6 hours and given oral antibiotics with a follow-up in 2 days with a primary care provider due to her suspicious urinalysis.  After the patient was discharged from the emergency department, the T2 resulted, approximately 4.5 hours after the draw.

Patient Selection Criteria

A septic patient presenting in the Emergency Department

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Diagnosis

Suspected UTI

Empiric Therapy

The patient was started on ceftriaxone

T2Bacteria Panel Result

Positive for E. coli

Blood Culture Result

Positive for E. coli

Urine culture

Positive for E.coli

Hospital course and decision making based on the T2Bacteria Result

A rapid T2Bacteria positive for E. coli prompted the ED team to bring the patient back to the hospital for admission, which potentially prevented additional clinical complications.

Once the patient was re-admitted, they began to spike fevers. Approximately 12 hours after re-admission, the blood cultures turned positive.  A Gram-stain was done, and a Gram-negative was identified (about 14 hours after the T2 resulted).   At the same time, the urine culture turned positive, confirming the source as genitourinary.  The patient was administered IV ceftriaxone until discharge, approximately 2.5 days after admission.   Blood cultures were finalized approximately three days after the initial blood draw confirming the E.coli.  The patient was sent home on oral antibiotics to complete her course of therapy.

 

A 72 year-old-patient presented to the ER with a productive cough for three days, left flank pain, and intermittent nausea.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefits of using the high negative predictive value (NPV) of the T2Bacteria Panel for early de-escalation of therapy, mainly when using antimicrobial agents that can commonly cause acute kidney injury.

Presentation

A 72 year-old-patient presented to the ER with a productive cough for three days, left flank pain, and intermittent nausea.  Pertinent laboratory values included a temperature of 38.5 oC, WBC of 18.5, and a lactic acid of 5.4. The patient was hospitalized one month prior for nephrolithiasis with left ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction, complicated by ESBL E. coli bacteremia, and had a left ureteral stent placed at the time. A urinalysis, urine culture, blood culture, and T2Bacteria sample were drawn in the ER, and the patient was started on meropenem and vancomycin due to recent surgery and history of ESBL E.coli infection. The patient was transferred to the ICU.

Patient Selection Criteria

Septic patient with a fever presenting to the ED

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Empiric Therapy

The patient was started on meropenem and vancomycin

T2Bacteria Panel Result

Positive for E.coli, negative for S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, E. faecium

Blood culture Result

Positive for E.coli (ESBL positive)

Urine culture Result

Positive for E.coli (ESBL positive)

Hospital course and decision making based on the T2Bacteria Result

The positive T2Bacteria result for E. coli came back once the patient was transferred to the ICU. The team discontinued vancomycin based on the negative T2Bacteria result for S. aureus and continued the meropenem.  The high NPV (99.7%) of the T2Bacteria Panel provided crucial diagnostic information that allowed for more informed treatment decisions, specifically the de-escalation of the anti-staphylococcal agent.  Blood and urine cultures resulted on the third day of therapy, both positive for ESBL E. coli, sensitive to meropenem.  The patient was continued on meropenem and discharged to subacute rehab with a plan to continue meropenem until their scheduled ureteral stent removal and replacement.

A severely dehydrated elderly patient was admitted for septic shock overnight.

Discussion

This case highlights not only T2Bacteria’s ability to rapidly identify specific bacterial pathogens in whole blood but also the capability to detect the causative organism in the presence of antibiotics where blood cultures remained negative, as well as an opportunity to use the result to de-escalate therapy.

Presentation

A severely dehydrated elderly patient was admitted for septic shock overnight. They presented with a fever of 102.3, WBC of 19.9, and a lactic acid of 6.5.  Upon presentation in the Emergency Room, blood cultures were taken, and they were started on broad-spectrum, empiric antimicrobials, and transferred to the ICU.  Urine cultures were taken in the morning because the suspected source of infection was genitourinary, and a T2Bacteria was run in addition to the second set of blood cultures.

Patient Selection Criteria

A septic patient presenting in the Emergency Department

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

The patient was started on piperacillin/tazobactam and levofloxacin

T2Bacteria Panel Result

Positive for E.coli

Blood Culture

Both sets of blood cultures- No growth

Urine Culture

No growth

Urinalysis

Indicative of a urinary infection

Decision making based on the T2Bacteria Result

Overnight blood cultures were obtained for an infectious workup at the time of admission, and in the early morning, a T2Bacteria was taken with the second set of blood cultures.

Despite the pending blood cultures at the time of the positive T2 result, the patient was de-escalated to a narrower spectrum antimicrobial, ceftriaxone, within 24 hours of the patient being admitted. The patient improved and was changed to oral therapy on day 5 of therapy and later discharged.

The patient presented to the emergency department 5 days after appendectomy

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of the T2Bacteria Panel’s rapid bacterial species identification in a scenario where a patient has already received several days of empiric therapy without significant clinical improvement. Once the causative organism was identified and effective therapy was initiated, the patient experienced rapid clinical improvement. This improvement enabled the patient to be discharged 2 days after the T2Bacteria result, potentially resulting in a reduced length of stay.

Presentation

A 33-year-old patient presented to the emergency department 5 days after appendectomy. The surgery and post-operative course progressed normally until Day 4, when the patient experienced new symptoms, including abdominal pain, fever, and nausea. At the time of assessment in the emergency department, the patient reported sharp pain on the ride side along with moderate areas of redness surrounding the incisions. The patient was admitted and started on ceftriaxone and metronidazole. Blood cultures were obtained and remained negative. On Day 3, the patient had not improved significantly. T2Bacteria was ordered as well as a CT-guided drainage of a right lower quadrant collection.

Patient Selection Criteria

Patient with intra-abdominal infection not improving on empiric antibiotic therapy

Evaluation and Treatment

Diagnosis

Intra-abdominal infection following an appendectomy

Empiric Therapy

Ceftriaxone and metronidazole

Blood Culture Result

Negative

T2Bacteria Panel Result

P. aeruginosa

Culture of Fluid Collection

P. aeruginosa and clostridium species

Decision Making Based on the T2Bacteria Result

Neither Ceftriaxone nor metronidazole provides coverage for P. aeruginosa, both were discontinued. Piperacillin/tazobactam was initiated to treat P. aeruginosa, as well as to provide anaerobic coverage, including against clostridium species.  The patient showed significant improvement on Day 4 and was released from the hospital on Day 5 with oral antibiotic therapy.

 

 

An 86 year old patient was transferred to the treating hospital with signs of septic shock.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of T2Bacteria’s rapid bacterial species identification, which allowed for a rapid escalation of antibiotic therapy and discontinuation of unnecessary antibiotics once Pseudomonas aeruginosa was identified.

Presentation

An 86 year old patient was transferred to the treating hospital with signs of septic shock. The patient had a history of multiple hospitalizations over the last three months, with several courses of antibiotics to treat pneumonia, as well as wound and urinary tract infections. On admission, the patient was on ampicillin/sulbactam and tedizolid for the treatment of a recent wound infected with K. pneumonia and E. faecalis.

On admission, the left leg wound appeared acutely infected and the patient had a fever as well as low blood pressure requiring vasopressor support. Additionally, the patient had a low platelet count, potentially caused by tedizolid therapy.

Patient Selection Criteria

New-onset suspected sepsis and elevated SOFA score in a patient with risk factors for infection.

Evaluation and Treatment

Diagnosis

Suspected sepsis

Empiric Therapy

Ampicillin/sulbactam and tedizolid

Blood Culture Result

Negative

T2Bacteria Panel Result

P. aeruginosa

Decision Making Based on the T2Bacteria Result:

Ampicillin/sulbactam and tedizolid do not provide coverage for P. aeruginosa and both were discontinued. Ceftolozane/tazobactam was initiated for the treatment of P. aeruginosa based on the local antibiogram. The patient showed significant improvement on Day 2 and was released from the hospital after receiving aggressive wound care and completing antibiotic therapy.

86-year-old patient with a past medical history of ischemic stroke, anemia, diabetes, and hypertension was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit.

Discussion

Therapy was escalated to appropriately cover the P. aeruginosa infection in a geographic region endemic for multi-drug resistant P. aeruginosa that was not identified via the blood culture. The patient recovered from the infection and was discharged to a rehabilitation facility.

Presentation

An 86-year-old patient with a past medical history of ischemic stroke, anemia, diabetes, and hypertension was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit due to shock, respiratory distress, fever, and increased WBC. The patient was recovering from a recent hospitalization for a sacral decubitus ulcer and UTI.

Previous Cultures:

Wound Swab: K. pneumoniae and E. faecium

Urine culture from catheter: E. faecalis

Rectal swab: K. pneumoniae

The patient was admitted to the ICU with orders for new blood cultures, urine cultures, T2Bacteria Panel, and was started on empiric antibiotics, IV fluids, and vasopressors.

Patient Selection Criteria

A patient suspected of sepsis with other microbiological evidence of infection

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Diagnosis

Septic Shock (unknown origin of infection)

Empiric Therapy

Ampicillin/sulbactam and tedizolid

T2Bacteria Result

Positive for P. aeruginosa

Blood Culture Result

no growth

Decision making based on T2Bacteria Result

A rapid T2Bacteria result allowed for the identification of the P. aeruginosa bacteremia in a patient with septic shock and blood culture-negative infection. This result prompted the prescriber to escalate therapy to ceftolozane/tazobactam and amikacin.

54-year-old male, with a past medical history of Hepatitis C, presented to the emergency department.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of the T2Bacteria Panel’s rapid bacterial species identification. Using T2Bacteria allowed for early identification of S. aureus endocarditis in a patient with a limited medical history that had been transferred from an outside hospital. Based on the T2Bacteria results, unnecessary antibiotics were discontinued on Day 1, and the patient received cardiology and infectious disease consultations for the management of endocarditis. The patient’s follow-on blood cultures were negative, likely due to the presence of antibiotics, but the S. aureus bacteremia was confirmed from a blood culture draw obtained prior to admission.

Presentation

A 54-year-old male, with a past medical history of Hepatitis C, presented to the emergency department as a transfer from an outlying hospital. He had septic shock and was directly admitted to the ICU for management.

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Antibiotics on admission

oxacillin, cefepime, and daptomycin.

Vitals

Temp- 39C, HR- 100BPM

Available labs

WBC- 11.1K CRP- 11.6 mg/dl, PCT – 0.8ng/mL, lactate 1.9 mmol/L

Blood cultures and T2Bacteria were both obtained at admission after initial antibiotic administration

Positive for S. aureus and negative for all other bacterial targets. (T2Bacteria result available at 3h 30min)

Transesophageal echocardiography

Positive for endocarditis

Follow-on Blood Culture Results

no growth

Decision making based on T2Candida Result

The patient’s therapy was adjusted based on the T2Bacteria result. An echocardiogram was ordered, resulting in positive for endocarditis. Oxacillin and cefepime were discontinued, and daptomycin was continued. Blood culture results from the outside hospital were also positive for S. aureus (results received on Day 2).

52-year-old male, currently undergoing hemodialysis three times weekly with a complicated medical history.

Discussion

This case highlights the benefit of the T2Bacteria Panel’s rapid species identification, allowing for the rapid initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy and resulting in clinical improvement.

Presentation

The patient was a 52-year-old male, currently undergoing hemodialysis three times weekly with a complicated medical history, including diabetes, hypertension, lung cancer, chronic kidney disease. While at dialysis, he experienced confusion and hypotension. The physician was notified, and the patient was transferred to the emergency department. In the emergency department, he was believed to be dehydrated secondary to too much fluid removed during dialysis. He received fluid resuscitation, and blood cultures, and T2Bacteria were obtained. Empiric antibiotics were not initiated.

Evaluation and Treatment Decision

Vitals

Temp- 37.5, HR- 89BPM, BP- 90/60

T2 Result

Positive for E.coli.  Negative for all other bacterial targets. (results available at 6 hours after initial presentation)

Blood Culture Result

no growth reported

Decision making based on T2Candida Result

The patient’s therapy was adjusted based on the T2Bacteria result. The patient did not improve after fluid resuscitation and was being transferred to the ICU at the time of T2Bacteria result due to persistent hypotension. Orders were initially written for vancomycin and cefepime, but the T2Bacteria results were received prior to administration, and therapy was changed to ceftriaxone (targeted therapy for E.coli infection).

Media Contact

Gina Kent
610-455-2763
gkent@vaultcommunications.com

According to the CDC, of the 154 million prescriptions for antibiotics written in doctors’ offices and emergency departments each year, 30% are unnecessary.12

PUBLICATIONS

Over 200 studies published in peer-reviewed journals have featured T2MR in a breadth of applications.