JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Ziegler, R.
Right arrow Articles by Just, H.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ziegler, R.
Right arrow Articles by Just, H.-M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, March 1998, p. 657-661, Vol. 36, No. 3
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

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

R. Ziegler,1 I. Johnscher,1 P. Martus,2 D. Lenhardt,1 and H.-M. Just1,*

Institut für Klinikhygiene, Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Klinische Infektiologie, Klinikum Nürnberg, 90419 Nürnberg,1 and Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen,2 Germany

Received 2 September 1997/Returned for modification 14 October 1997/Accepted 24 November 1997

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.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Institut für Klinikhygiene, Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Klinische Infektiologie, Klinikum Nürnberg, Flurstr. 17, 90419 Nürnberg, Germany. Phone: (49) 911 398 2522. Fax: (49) 911 398 3266.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, March 1998, p. 657-661, Vol. 36, No. 3
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


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 © 1998 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.