Evidence Hub

Randomized controlled diagnostic trial to assess dRAST time to result and its utility for antimicrobial stewardship recommendation in bacteremic patients

Halperin AV, Escudero R, García-Castillo M, Cardenas-Isasi MJ, Gioia F, Cobo J, Sánchez-Díaz AM, Cantón R

Microbiology spectrum, 2025

277 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Bloodstream infections cause great mortality and morbidity. Real-time microbiological information has been shown to have an impact on prognosis when combined with an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program. dRAST is a rapid commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) system based on real-time microscopy. The primary outcome of this trial was to compare positive blood culture's time-to-result (TTR), defined as time from Gram stain to AST report, between dRAST and our standard of care in a real-life clinical setting. Secondary outcomes included microbiological concordance, time to antimicrobial stewardship recommendation (TAMS), and time to change antimicrobial prescription (TCAP) in agreement with AMS recommendation. We performed a prospective, open-label, randomized (1:1) diagnostic clinical trial comparing dRAST and our standard of care commercial MicroScan broth microdilution (MBMD) (MicroScan-Walkaway, Beckman-Coulter, USA) in 277 hospitalized patients with bacteremia. Categorical and continuous variables were compared by chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Median TTR, TAMS, and TCAP were 25, 28, and 29 hours in the MBMD group, and 9, 11, and 13 hours in the dRAST group, respectively. For gram-negative bacilli, essential agreement (EA) was 93.6%, categorical agreement (CA) 93.2%, very major error (VME) 14%, major error (ME) 3%, and minor error (mE) 1.4%. For gram-positive cocci, EA was 93.7%, CA 92.8%, VME 0%, ME 7.6%, and mE 1.8%. dRAST is a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 277 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free