Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to: European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (2024) 43:1193–1203
In the originally published article, the Abstract section was incorrectly captured without subheadings during typesetting.
The correct abstract is shown below:
Abstract
Purpose To assess clinical impact and perform cost-consequence analysis of the broadest multiplex PCR panels available for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSI).
Methods Single-center, randomized controlled trial conducted from June 2019 to February 2021 at a French University hospital with an institutional antimicrobial stewardship program. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with optimized antimicrobial treatment 12 h after transmission of positivity and Gram stain results from the first positive BC.
Results This percentage was significantly higher in the multiplex PCR (mPCR) group (90/105 = 85.7% %, CI95% [77.5 ; 91.8] vs. 68/107 = 63.6%, CI95% [53.7 ; 72.6]; p < 10− 3) at interim analysis, resulting in the early termination of the study after the inclusion of 309 patients. For patients not optimized at baseline, the median time to obtain an optimized therapy was much shorter in the mPCR group than in the control group (6.9 h, IQR [2.9; 17.8] vs. 26.4 h, IQR [3.4; 47.5]; p = 0.001). Early optimization of antibiotic therapy resulted in a non-statistically significant decrease in mortality from 12.4 to 8.8% (p = 0.306), with a trend towards a shorter median length of stay (18 vs. 20 days; p = 0.064) and a non-significant reduction in the average cost per patient of €3,065 (p = 0.15). mPCR identified all the bacteria present in 88% of the samples.
Conclusion Despite its higher laboratory cost, the use of multiplex PCR for BSI diagnosis leads to early-optimised therapy, seems cost-effective and could reduce mortality and length of stay. Their impact could probably be improved if implemented 24/7.
The original paper has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04820-z.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Caspar, Y., Deves, A., Richarme, C. et al. Correction to: Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04924-6
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04924-6