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 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 Lucas, V. S.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, G. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lucas, V. S.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, G. J.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2002, p. 3416-3420, Vol. 40, No. 9
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.9.3482-3484.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Lysis Filtration and an Automated Blood Culture System (BACTEC) for Detection, Quantification, and Identification of Odontogenic Bacteremia in Children

Victoria S. Lucas,1* Vasiliki Lytra,2 Thoraya Hassan,2 Helen Tatham,2 M. Wilson,3 and Graham J. Roberts2,4

Departments of Oral Medicine,1 Paediatric Dentistry,2 Microbiology, The Eastman Dental Institute for Oral Healthcare Sciences,3 The Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1X 8LD4

Received 20 February 2002/ Returned for modification 22 April 2002/ Accepted 27 June 2002

Lysis filtration (LyF) was compared with BACTEC PAEDS PLUS in estimating the prevalence of, and sensitivity for, detection of odontogenic bacteremia. Both real bacteremia and simulated bacteremia (seeded blood or saline samples) were assessed to determine the validity of LyF in estimating bacteremia. The simulated bacteremia was also used to assess the reliability of LyF to estimate intensity of bacteremia in CFU per milliliter of blood. Reference organisms were used to assess the abilities of LyF and BACTEC to isolate known oral streptococci. There was no difference in the number of CFU per milliliter of seeded saline, seeded blood, and drop cultures of the organisms plated directly onto agar. Blood cell volume had a negligible effect on the yield of organisms for simulated bacteremia. When LyF and BACTEC were compared, the time to detection of bacteremia was always significantly shorter for BACTEC. For aerobic cultures, these times were 43.7 and 9.6 h, respectively (P < 0.01). For anaerobic cultures, these times were 45.1 and 9.9 h, respectively (P < 0.01). These differences occurred as well for bacteremia following the extraction of a single tooth, with LyF and BACTEC aerobic cultures taking 78 and 30.5 h, respectively (P < 0.0001). For anaerobic cultures, the times were 90.8 and 45 h, respectively (P < 0.0004). A preextraction bacteremia was detected on 2.1% of occasions with BACTEC compared to 31% of occasions with LyF (P < 0.05) The use of LyF was an effective and reliable means of estimating the intensity of pre- and postextraction bacteremia. The values were 3.6 and 5.9 CFU/ml, respectively (P < 0.4729), and the difference was not statistically significant. In summary, BACTEC is quicker than LyF, but less sensitive. LyF provides additional important information in estimating the intensity of bacteremia.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Oral Medicine, Eastman Dental Institute, 256 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LD, United Kingdom. Phone: 44 020 7915 1022. Fax: 44 020 7915 2329. E-mail: v.lucas{at}eastman.ucl.ac.uk.


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2002, p. 3416-3420, Vol. 40, No. 9
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.9.3482-3484.2002
Copyright © 2002, 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 © 2002 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.