Controlled Clinical Laboratory Comparison of Two Supplemented Aerobic and Anaerobic Media Used in Automated Blood Culture Systems To Detect Bloodstream Infections

Author:

Ziegler R.1,Johnscher I.1,Martus P.2,Lenhardt D.1,Just H.-M.1

Affiliation:

1. Institut für Klinikhygiene, Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Klinische Infektiologie, Klinikum Nürnberg, 90419 Nürnberg,1 and

2. Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen,2 Germany

Abstract

ABSTRACT A 20-ml blood sample was collected from adult patients with suspected bloodstream infections and distributed equally into the four volume-controlled bottles of a blood culture set consisting of aerobic and anaerobic BACTEC Plus/F bottles and aerobic and anaerobic BacT/Alert FAN bottles. All bottles were incubated in their respective instruments for a standard 5-day protocol or until the instruments signalled positivity. Samples in all bottles with negative results by these instruments were terminally subcultured. A total of 8,390 blood culture sets were obtained during the study period, of which 4,402 (52.5%) met the study criteria. Of these, 946 (21.5%) were positive either by instrument signal or by additional terminal subculture of all negative bottles and yielded growth of microorganisms. Five hundred eighty-nine (13.4%) blood culture sets were considered to have recovered 663 clinically significant organisms. When both the BACTEC and the BacT/Alert systems were used, 465 positive sets were detected; BACTEC alone detected 52 positive sets and BacT/Alert alone detected 72 ( P = 0.09). No differences were found between the two systems in microbial recovery rate from blood cultures obtained from patients on antibiotic therapy. Significantly more members of the family Enterobacteriaceae ( P < 0.01) were detected from patients without antimicrobial therapy by BacT/Alert than by BACTEC. The false-negative rates were 0.20% for BACTEC and 0.32% for BacT/Alert. A significantly higher false-positive rate was found for BACTEC ( P < 0.0001). Both systems were comparable for the time to detection of microorganisms. However, gram-positive bacteria were detected faster by BACTEC and Enterobacteriaceae were detected faster on average by BacT/Alert. We concluded that both systems are comparable in their abilities to recover aerobic and anaerobic organisms from blood cultures and a terminal subculture might not be necessary for either of the two systems. The increased positivity rate when using an anaerobic bottle in a two-bottle blood culture set is due to the additional blood volume rather than to the use of an anaerobic medium.

Publisher

American Society for Microbiology

Subject

Microbiology (medical)

Reference20 articles.

1. Auckenthaler R. Rohner P. Verschraegen G. Bernard D. Claeys G. Shafi M. S. Stevens M. Schuster G. Kontinuierlich messende Blutkultursysteme.European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Seville Spain (März 1993) 1994

2. Fontanals D. Stafeliu I. Pons I. Mariscal D. Torra M. Evaluation of the performance of BacT/Alert and VITAL blood culture systems for diagnosis of bacteremia. Poster 16/17 at the Seventh National Congress of the Spanish Society for Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Torremolinos Spain 1996

3. Time to detection of positive BacT/Alert blood cultures and lack of need for routine subculture of 5- to 7-day negative cultures

4. Controlled clinical laboratory comparison of BACTEC plus aerobic/F resin medium with BacT/Alert aerobic FAN medium for detection of bacteremia and fungemia

5. Rationale for selective use of anaerobic blood cultures

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3