This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Courcol, R J Articles by Martin, G R Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Courcol, R J Articles by Martin, G R

Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1988 September; 26(9): 1619-1622

Routine evaluation of BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media.

Bacteriology Laboratory, A. Calmette Hospital, Lille, France.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media were more effective than the BACTEC NR-6A and NR-7A media in recovering organisms from the blood of patients undergoing antimicrobial therapy. A total of 986 sets of four blood culture bottles were compared, giving 141, 174, 93, and 104 isolates with BACTEC NR-6A, NR-16A, NR-7A, and NR-17A, respectively. BACTEC NR-6A and NR-7A media recovered 234 isolates, whereas BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media recovered 278 isolates. The recovery rate of bacteria when aerobic resin media were used was better than that with conventional aerobic media (P less than 0.001). The mean detection times were 51.5 and 69.7 h with NR-16A and NR-6A, respectively (P less than 0.01), whereas they were 68.2 and 71.3 h with NR-17A and NR-7A, respectively (P greater than 0.05). The small number of anaerobes recovered precluded a statistical comparison of relative recovery for that group of organisms.