JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Welby-Sellenriek, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Storch, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Welby-Sellenriek, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Storch, G. A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 05 1997, 1166-1171, Vol 35, No. 5
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of the BacT/Alert FAN aerobic and the Difco ESP 80A aerobic bottles for pediatric blood cultures

PL Welby-Sellenriek, DS Keller, RJ Ferrett and GA Storch
Edward Mallinckrodt Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

We compared the BacT/Alert system using the aerobic FAN bottle with the ESP system using the 80A aerobic bottle for the detection of pediatric bloodstream pathogens at a children's hospital. From 6,636 blood culture sets complying with the inclusion criteria, 308 pathogens were detected, including 177 that were detected by both systems, 69 that were detected by BacT/Alert FAN only, and 62 that were detected by ESP 80A only (P = 0.6; not significant). BacT/Alert FAN detected more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (47 versus 34; P = 0.02), while ESP 80A detected more episodes of streptococcal and enterococcal infection. BacT/Alert FAN detected more pathogens from patients receiving antibiotic therapy (107 versus 93; P = 0.04). Of 248 separate episodes of bacteremia or fungemia, 146 were detected by both systems, 56 were detected by ESP 80A only, and 46 were detected by BacT/Alert FAN only (P = 0.37; not significant). The median times to detection were 13.6 h for ESP 80A and 15.7 h for BacT/Alert FAN (P < 0.001). Both systems were considered easy to operate and were free from significant mechanical difficulties. False-positive or false-negative signals were rare or nonexistent with both systems. We conclude that both systems rapidly detect a broad range of pediatric bloodstream pathogens. BacT/Alert FAN provides better detection of Staphylococcus aureus, especially from patients receiving antibiotics. ESP 80A provides better detection of streptococci and enterococci.


This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.