Investigation: the patient was a 30-year-old male who was a trauma patient.On (b)(6) 2024, a patient's positive blood culture sample was tested on the biofire bcid2 panel.The biofire bcid2 panel reported all analytes as not detected.Gram-negative rods were observed on gram stain and p.Aeruginosa was recovered from culture.On (b)(6) 2024, the sample was rested on the biofire bcid2 panel.The biofire bcid2 panel reported p.Aeruginosa as detected.The customer stated that the patient is now deceased, however, the patient was not impacted due to the biofire bcid2 panel result.Quality control (qc) records for pouch lot# 32kn23 (kit lot# 2635923) were reviewed.This pouch lot passed qc criteria and was found within specifications.The filmarray instrument (serial number# (b)(6)) was working within designed specifications.Conclusion: the investigation concluded that the most likely cause for the false negative p.Aeruginosa result on the biofire bcid2 panel was a pouch anomaly.Biofire is continuously monitoring the manufacturing process and has controls in place to ensure the product is manufactured to the highest quality.Each biofire reagent lot is qualified prior to product release; this qualification includes a high statistical-confidence sampling to confirm that the kit components released for customer use are conforming.All qc metrics for the pouch lot and instrument were met, and they passed qc.Review of the associated instrument showed the instrument was performing within specification and was not expected to have contributed to the discrepancies observed by the customer.Overall, p.Aeruginosa on biofire bcid2 panel has a false negative rate of (b)(4) in the field over the last year.These rates are within biofire system specifications.According to table 36.Biofire bcid2 panel clinical performance summary, pseudomonas aeruginosa of the biofire bcid2 panel instructions for use (www.Online-ifu.Com/iti0048), the performance claim for the p.Aeruginosa assay compared to standard manual and automated microbiological/biochemical identification methods showed an overall sensitivity of (b)(4) and an overall specificity of (b)(4)).Archived testing was not performed for p.Aeruginosa.(b)(4) single-seeded specimens were true positives (tp), and (b)(4) specimens that were co-seeded with enterococcus faecalis were detected.E.Faecalis was detected in 10/10 of the co-seeded specimens.P.Aeruginosa was detected in both false positive specimens using an additional molecular method.
|