These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Controlled clinical laboratory comparison of two supplemented aerobic and anaerobic media used in automated blood culture systems to detect bloodstream infections.
    Author: Ziegler R, Johnscher I, Martus P, Lenhardt D, Just HM.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 1998 Mar; 36(3):657-61. PubMed ID: 9508291.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]