The hemoFISH®Gram positive panel correctly identified 221/239 Gram-positive isolates (92.5%) (Table  1). Particularly, a total of 130 coagulase negative staphylococci were identified as Staphylococcus spp (the staphylococci identification obtained using Vitek 2 system were: 70 Staphylococcus epidermidis, 23 Staphylococcus hominis, 22

Staphylococcus haemolyticus, 4 Staphylococcus warneri, 8 Staphylococcus capitis, 1 Staphylococcus auricolaris, 1 Staphylococcus saccharolyticus, 1 Staphylococcus saprophyticus) while one sample positive for Staphylococcus cohnii was not identified. 16 samples, positive per Staphylococcus aureus, were correctly identified (Table  1). Looking at the streptococci, 30/32 samples were correctly PU-H71 datasheet identified as Streptococcus spp (19 Streptococcus mitis, 1 Streptococcus bovis, 2 Streptococcus oralis, 4 Streptococcus AZD9291 cell line gallolyticus and 1 Streptococcus gordoni), while among 5 specimens positive for Streptococcus pneumoniae, 3 were identified as Streptococcus spp (albeit no signal was evidenced with specific probe in S.pneumonie well) and 2 were not identified (only the signal with the eubacterial probe was recorded) (Table  1). Enterococci were detected in a total of 41/44 specimens, two Enterococcus raffinosus were not identified and one Enterococcus gallinarum was misidentified by hemoFISH as Enterococcus faecium (Vitek

2 system identified: 19 Enterococcus faecalis, 22 E.faecium, 2 E. raffinosus and one E.gallinarum) (Table  1). Eight specimens resulted positive for Microcococcus spp, namely 4 Micrococcus luteus and 4 Micrococcus lylae, of these, two (those positive for M.luteus) gave a positive FK866 supplier fluorescent signal on the Staphylococcus spp well (recorded as misidentifications), the remaining 6 were not identified (Table  1). Among the Gram-positive bacilli: two Corynebaterium spp and two Bacillus spp were identified in four different specimens by Vitek 2 (one Corynebacterium amycolatum, one Corynebacterium spp, one Bacillus cereus and one Bacillus spp). Identification by hemoFISH®

failed for all of them (neither the signal for the positive control was detected). While the hemoFISH® correctly identified three Clostridium perfringens (Table  1). One sample containing Candida did not yield a specific signal Rebamipide with any of the hemoFISH® probes but was clearly visible via auto fluorescent signals on all fields. A total of 29 specimens were not identified (21 strains) or misidentified (8 strains) by the hemoFISH® test (29/393; 7.4%). The global performances recorded with the hemoFISH panels, in comparison with those identified by Vitek 2 system, are summarized in the Table  1. The overall concordance between traditional culture and hemoFISH® for the negative samples was 100%, no fluorescent specific signal was recorded on 181 negative blood cultures processed.