Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2001, p. 1960-1962, Vol. 39, No. 5
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,
Georgia1; Lilongwe Central Hospital,
Lilongwe, Malawi2; and and Duke
University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina3
Received 16 November 2000/Returned for modification 14 January
2001/Accepted 20 February 2001
In previous bloodstream infection studies in Malawi, we inoculated
blood from a single venesection into a single BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC (MFL)
vial. Inoculation of one vial, however, would be expected to reduce the
sensitivity of bloodstream pathogen detection with MFL vials. To
ascertain the degree of this loss of sensitivity, blood was drawn from
each of 228 febrile, adult inpatients in Malawi and 5 ml of each blood
sample was inoculated into each of two MFL vials. Of 228 paired vials,
51 (22%) were both positive, 172 (75%) were both negative, and 5 (3%) had discordant results. Bloodstream infection would have been
detected in 11 (92%) of 12 patients with mycobacteremia and 38 (92%)
of 41 patients with bacteremia had only one MFL vial been inoculated.
Our study shows that a second MFL vial does not significantly increase
diagnostic sensitivity.
The rationale for inoculating two
blood culture vials with blood drawn either from a single venepuncture
and divided or from separate distinct blood draws is based on the
evidence that the likelihood of recovery of bloodstream pathogens is
increased if larger volumes of blood are cultured (5, 7, 8,
11). Weinstein and colleagues (14) established
that, using conventional manual methods, a single set (one blood draw)
of blood cultures will generally detect 91% of cases of bacteremia,
while two sets would detect >99% of cases of bacteremia. Recently
published data have suggested that in less developed countries where
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is prevalent, valid
characterization of bloodstream infections in hospitalized adults may
necessitate culturing of blood for mycobacteria, bacteria, and fungi
(1, 3, 4, 10). Such an endeavor often requires drawing of up to 30 ml of blood from patients. However, limited blood culture supplies or microbiology capacities in developing countries often preclude retrieval of more than one blood sample for culture per patient, inoculation of more than one vial per blood draw, or comprehensive culture for bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungi. Moreover, for cultural reasons, patients from various countries may be reluctant to part with the seemingly large volumes of blood that are necessary when culturing for these three classes of pathogens.
In a recently published report, we demonstrated that 5 ml of blood
inoculated into one BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC (MFL; Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems) blood culture vial was a convenient method for
culturing for bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungi and was as good as or
superior to alternative culture systems that we evaluated (2). We proposed that the MFL vial may be a useful tool
for studying (i) bloodstream infections in less developed settings where blood cultures already are part of a microbiology service repertoire or where existing resources limit blood culture service or
(ii) conducting prevalence surveys by use of blood culture (3).
Although inoculation of two MFL vials has potential clinical benefit,
it also could be economically unsustainable if it is recommended as
part of routine blood culture services in developing countries with
limited resources. Therefore, we conducted further analyses of our data
to determine the utility of inoculation of blood from one draw
consecutively into two MFL vials for detection of bacteremia,
mycobacteremia, and fungemia in febrile, adult inpatients in Lilongwe
Central Hospital (LCH) in Lilongwe, Malawi. Malawi is a developing
country in sub-Saharan Africa; LCH is a 300-bed district general
hospital located in the central part of the country.
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by Institutional
Review Boards at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga., and the Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.
From March to May 1998 (study period), consecutive, febrile adult
patients admitted to LCH were recruited into the study following receipt of informed consent from all patients. Venous blood was drawn
with a needle and a syringe in a single venesection as described previously (2), and 5 ml of each blood sample was
inoculated aseptically into each of two MFL vials that were then
cultured on-site at 35°C. The MFL vials were read for evidence of
growth with a UV lamp ( All blood culture vials and all bacterial, fungal, or mycobacterial
isolates that were isolated at the study site were transported to the
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at Duke University Medical Center in the United States, where mycobacterial and fungal
cultures were processed and the identities of bacterial and fungal
isolates that had already been isolated in Malawi were confirmed. The
methodologies for the identification of bacteria, mycobacteria, and
fungi have been described elsewhere (2, 3). Rates of
recovery of bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungi in the MFL vials were
compared with each other by the McNemar modification of the chi-square
test and, where appropriate, Yates' correction for small numbers of observations.
During the study period, single blood draws from 228 study patients
were inoculated into paired MFL blood culture vials; 56 (24.6%) of
these study patients had clinically significant bloodstream infections:
41 caused by bacteria, 12 caused by mycobacteria, and 3 caused by
fungi. The following pathogens were isolated from positive cultures of
blood from febrile adults: Salmonella spp. (including three
Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi isolates), n = 33 (59%); Mycobacterium tuberculosis, n = 12 (22%); other gram-negative organisms (one Acinetobacter
lwoffi isolate, one Proteus mirabilis isolate, and
three Escherichia coli isolates), n = 5
(9%); gram-positive organisms (one Streptococcus pneumoniae isolate and two Staphylococcus aureus isolates),
n = 3 (5%); and Cryptococcus neoformans,
n = 3 (5%). Salmonella spp. and
Mycobacterium tuberculosis were the two most common
isolates. Fifty-one (91%) of the 56 positive cultures were positive in
both bottles. Of the 228 MFL vial pairs, 51 (22%) were both positive,
170 (75%) were both negative, and 5 (3%) had discordant results. Two
(0.9%) of the 228 pairs of blood cultures yielded coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. that were considered skin contaminants
and therefore were not included in the data analysis.
In a recently published report (2), we demonstrated that
the results obtained with the MFL vial compared well with the results
obtained with the set tested by the "gold standard"
lysis-centrifugation method (6) for the detection of
bacteremia, mycobacteremia, and fungemia. In the present study, we show
that since nearly all (91%) pairs of bottles had positive cultures
following sequential inoculation with blood from a single venepuncture,
the culture of a second MFL vial does not add incrementally to the
recovery rate established by inoculation of the first vial. In fact,
the bloodstream infections in 11 (92%) of the 12 patients with
mycobacteremia and 38 (92%) of the 41 patients with bacteremia would
have been detected anyway had only one MFL vial been inoculated (Table
1). The overall median time to detection
of bacteria and fungi in the MFL vials was 1 day (range, 1 to 4 days).
A comparison of the time of recovery for mycobacteria could not be
realistically conducted for the two MFL vials because it was not
feasible to determine growth during shipment of the vials to the United
States.
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1960-1962.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Utility of Paired BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC Blood Culture
Vials for Detection of Bacteremia, Mycobacteremia, and
Fungemia


![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
= 365 nm) to detect the fluorescence of
the indicator at the bottom of the vial. Both MFL vials were examined twice in the first 24 h following incubation for signs of growth, daily
for the next 7 days, and then weekly for 8 weeks or until growth was
observed. Preliminary identification of bacteria and fungi were made
on-site by standard microbiologic tests.
TABLE 1.
Comparison of paired MFL vials for recovery of bacteria,
mycobacteria, and fungia
Published recommendations for culture of blood drawn from febrile patients include retrieval of two blood samples, each a minimum of 10 ml, drawn separately and as close as possible to the febrile episode (9, 13). In our study, we inoculated blood obtained from one venesection into two MFL vials; the main issue that we examined in the present analysis was the adequacy of the blood volume from a single blood draw for detection of bloodstream infections. Our study did not attempt to ascertain the utility of inoculation of blood from two separate blood draws (i.e., two sets) into respective MFL vials for bacterial, mycobacterial, or fungal culture.
Although the practice of obtaining paired samples of blood from single and separate blood draws for bacterial culture has been extended to obtaining blood samples for mycobacterial culture, no published data critically evaluate these practices. Of note, the aforementioned recommendations for obtaining blood samples for culture are based on studies conducted in the United States, where rates of bloodstream infections are relatively low compared with those in settings of HIV endemicity, where bloodstream infection rates among febrile inpatients may range from 28 to 48% (1, 3, 4, 10). The prevalence rate of bloodstream infections in our study setting was 25% (95% confidence interval, 19%, 31%). Thus, there is a 95% probability that our sample size reflects the true prevalence rate of bloodstream infections in the indigenous febrile inpatient populations.
In the United States, the MFL vial is designed for use in the BACTEC 9000 series automated blood culture machines and is licensed and marketed as a system for the growth and detection of mycobacteria (2, 12). The MFL blood culture medium is not selective and will support the growth of aerobic organisms, such as mycobacteria, bacteria, and yeasts. Thus, the predominance of one organism may interfere with the recovery of other types of organisms and therefore may prevent detection of polymicrobial bloodstream infections (i.e., infections with more than one pathogen). This may explain why none of the MFL vial pairs in our study exhibited any evidence of polymicrobial bloodstream infections.
There were other limitations to this study: (i) the numbers of fungal bloodstream infections were too small to enable a valid assessment of the use of one versus two MFL vials for the detection of fungemia, and (ii) because the MFL vials were shipped to the United States for further processing, we were unable to assess and compare relative times of detection of mycobacteria for each vial. In the previous study conducted in Malawi (2), the MFL vial's ability to recover bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungi was comparable to that of the lysis-centrifugation method (2). However, comparison of the MFL vial with other bottles, such as BACTEC bottles containing large volumes of resin, has not been conducted in similar settings with populations with high rates of HIV type 1 and bloodstream infections.
In summary, we found that inoculation of 5 ml of blood into one MFL vial will detect about 92% of cases of bacteremia and mycobacteremia. In addition, our data suggest that the MFL vial serves as a useful, multipurpose tool for the detection and characterization of bloodstream infections in settings of HIV endemicity in less developed countries and that inoculation of blood obtained in a single blood draw into a single MFL vial is acceptable for detection of bacteremia and mycobacteremia. A second MFL vial does not significantly increase the sensitivity of detection of these pathogens.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We are indebted to the nursing and medical staffs in the Department of Medicine at LCH, the patients who participated in the study, and the Malawi Ministry of Health and the U.S. Agency for International Development, Malawi, for facilitating the conduct of this study. The BACTEC MFL vials for this project were kindly provided by Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop A-35, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: (404) 639-6443. Fax: (404) 639-2647. E-mail: LCA6{at}CDC.GOV.
Present address: Department of Renal Medicine, The Middlesex
Hospital, Mortimer St., London W1N 8AA, United Kingdom.
Present address: Office of Health, Population & Nutrition,
USAID/Mozambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Archibald, L. K., M. O. den Dulk, K. J. Pallangyo, and L. B. Reller. 1998. Fatal Mycobacterium tuberculosis bloodstream infections in febrile hospitalized adults in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Clin. Infect. Dis. 26:290-296[Medline]. |
| 2. |
Archibald, L. K.,
L. C. McDonald,
R. M. Addison,
C. McKnight,
T. Byrne,
H. Dobbie,
O. Nwanyanwu,
P. Kazembe,
L. B. Reller, and W. R. Jarvis.
2000.
Comparison of BACTEC MYCO/F LYTIC and WAMPOLE ISOLATOR 10 (lysis-centrifugation) systems for detection of bacteremia, mycobacteremia, and fungemia in a developing country.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
38:2994-2997 |
| 3. | Archibald, L. K., L. C. McDonald, O. Nwanyanwu, P. Kazembe, H. Dobbie, J. Tokars, L. B. Reller, and W. R. Jarvis. 2000. A hospital-based prevalence survey of bloodstream infections in febrile patients in Malawi: implications for diagnosis and therapy. J. Infect. Dis. 181:1414-1420[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. |
Archibald, L. K.,
L. C. McDonald,
S. Rheanpumikankit,
S. Tansuphaswadikul,
A. Chaovanich,
B. Eampokalap,
S. N. Banerjee,
L. B. Reller, and W. R. Jarvis.
1999.
Fever and human immunodeficiency virus infection as sentinels for emerging mycobacterial and fungal bloodstream infections in hospitalized patients 15 years old, Bangkok.
J. Infect. Dis.
180:87-92[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 5. |
Hall, M. M.,
D. M. Ilstrup, and J. A. Washington.
1976.
Effect of volume of blood cultured on detection of bacteremia.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
3:643-645 |
| 6. |
Henry, N. K.,
C. A. McLimans,
A. J. Wright,
R. L. Thompson,
W. R. Wilson, and J. A. Washington.
1983.
Microbiological and clinical evaluation of the Isolator lysis-centrifugation blood culture tube.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
17:864-869 |
| 7. | Ilstrup, D. M., and J. A. Washington. 1983. The importance of volume of blood cultured in the detection of bacteremia and fungemia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1:107-110[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 8. |
Plorde, J. J.,
F. C. Tenover, and L. G. Carlson.
1985.
Specimen volume versus yield in the BACTEC blood culture system.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
22:292-295 |
| 9. | Reller, L. B., J. D. McLowry, and P. R. Murray. 1982. Cumitech 1A Blood cultures II. Coordinating ed., T. L. Gavin. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 10. | Ssali, F. N., M. R. Kamya, F. Wabwire-Mangen, S. Kasasa, M. Joloba, D. Williams, R. D. Mugerwa, J. J. Ellner, and J. L. Johnson. 1998. A prospective study of community-acquired bloodstream infections among febrile adults admitted to Mulago Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. 19:484-489[Medline]. |
| 11. |
Tenney, J. H.,
L. B. Reller,
S. Mirrett,
W. L. Wang, and M. P. Weinstein.
1982.
Controlled evaluation of the volume of blood cultured in detection of bacteremia and fungemia.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
15:558-561 |
| 12. |
Waite, R. T., and G. L. Woods.
1998.
Evaluation of BACTEC MYCO/F lytic medium for recovery of mycobacteria and fungi from blood.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:1176-1179 |
| 13. | Washington, J. A. 1986. Blood cultures: issues and controversies. Rev. Infect. Dis. 8:792-802[Medline]. |
| 14. | Weinstein, M. P., L. B. Reller, J. R. Murphy, and K. A. Lichtenstein. 1983. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures: a comprehensive analysis of 500 episodes of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. I. Laboratory and epidemiologic observations. Rev. Infect. Dis. 5:35-53[Medline]. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. | Clin. Microbiol. Rev. |
|---|---|
| Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | ALL ASM JOURNALS |
|---|