Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 1998, p. 1819-1819, Vol. 36, No. 6
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Microbiological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
 |
LETTER |
Recent developments in the automation of blood culture systems
have greatly decreased the times required for detection of many
microorganisms. This has been especially useful in the rapid detection
of slow-growing bacteria. Recent reports have described more rapid
detection under both in vivo and in vitro conditions for members of the
genus Brucella. Casas et al. (2) studied the suitability of
the Bact/Alert system (Organon Teknica, Durham, N.H.) for the in vitro
detection of Brucella spp. and reported a mean detection
time of 2 to 3 days. The same authors also studied Brucella
growth in vivo by sequential sampling in five patients. The Bact/Alert
system detected Brucella melitensis in only one bottle after
2.9 days of incubation, while detection was delayed for up to 10 to 20 days by a blind pass in the remaining seven bottles.
More recently, Ruiz et al. (3) evaluated the performance of three
blood culture systems, Hémoline diphasic medium
(bioMeriéux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), Bactec Plus Aerobic/F
(Becton Dickinson, Paramus, N.J.), and Vital Aer
(bioMeriéux), in the diagnosis of 17 cases of brucellosis.
The mean detection times obtained were 136.94, 92.37, and 162.18 h,
respectively, with the earliest positive detection made with the Bactec
system after 59 h.
We have been using the Bact/Alert system in our laboratory for routine
blood cultures over the past 2.5 years. This system was applied to
blood samples obtained from patients with and without suspicion of
brucellosis. Samples for three complete sets (one aerobic and one
anaerobic culture bottle each) were taken at 30-min intervals. In
suspected cases of brucellosis, bottles were maintained up to 30 days
and then subcultured unless any sign of positivity was detected. Over a
recent 8-month period we have isolated five Brucella strains
from blood cultures of five patients. Patient 1 (diagnosis of suspected
brucellosis) had a primary aerobic culture bottle that was positive
after 64.8 h of incubation and a second aerobic bottle that was
positive after incubation for 86.4 h. For patient 2 (diagnosis of
endocarditis), all three aerobic bottles were positive within 44, 46.3, and 48 h, respectively. For patient 3 (diagnosis of pancreatic
abscess), two aerobic culture bottles were positive after incubation
for 86.4 and 88.4 h, respectively. In addition, a culture bottle
inoculated with a sample of pancreatic abscess fluid became positive
after only 13.3 h. Patient 4 (diagnosis of febrile syndrome) and
patient 5 (diagnosis of pyelonephritis) each had one aerobic bottle
that was positive within 72 h. All the strains were identified as
Brucella spp., and serum samples from all five patients were shown
to be reactive to Brucella by standard serological tests.
In summary, our data obtained by using the Bact/Alert system indicate a
more rapid detection of Brucella in vivo than has been shown
in previous reports, with our mean time of detection being 67.8 h.
Laboratories should be aware of the potential risk when these strains
are isolated and the possibility of misidentifying this bacterium
as Moraxella phenylpyruvica as has been described elsewhere
(1). We observed this using the API 20NE bacterial identification
system (bioMérieux). Finally, it is advisable to suspect the
presence of Brucella spp. when positivity is detected only
in aerobic bottles after incubation for 2 to 3 days, Gram smears from
culture bottles are difficult to resolve, and tiny colonies are
observed at 24 h after subculture to solid media.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank María J. García and Tim Bull for helpful
review of the manuscrpt, Jesús Agüero for his
collaboration, and the technicians Gema Ruiz, Concepción Herrera,
and Ana Sainz.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Barham, W. B.,
P. Church,
J. E. Brown, and S. Paparello.
1993.
Misidentification of Brucella species with use of rapid bacterial identification systems.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
17:1068-1069[Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Casas, J.,
Y. Portal,
J. Llosá,
J. Leiva,
J. M. Navarro, and M. de la Rosa.
1994.
Detection of Brucella by an automatic bloodculture system: Bact/Alert.
Emferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin.
12:497-500.
|
| 3.
|
Ruiz, J.,
I. Lorente,
J. Pérez,
E. Simarro, and L. Martínez-Campos.
1997.
Diagnosis of brucellosis by using blood cultures.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
35:2417-2418[Abstract].
|
| | | | |
María Pía Roiz
Laboratorio de Microbiología
|
| | | | |
Francisco Galo Peralta
Reina Valle
Rafael Arjona
Servicio de Medicina Interna Hospital Sierrallana Torrelavega 39300 Cantabria, Spain
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 1998, p. 1819-1819, Vol. 36, No. 6
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Yagupsky, P.
(1999). Detection of Brucellae in Blood Cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol.
37: 3437-3442
[Full Text]