Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2001, p. 2098-2101, Vol. 39, No. 6
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.6.2098-2101.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Controlled Comparison of Original Vented Aerobic FAN Medium with
New Nonvented BacT/ALERT FA Medium for Culturing Blood
Stanley
Mirrett,1,2,*
Richard J.
Everts,1,2 and
L. Barth
Reller1,2,3
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke
University Medical Center,1 and
Departments of Pathology2 and
Medicine,3 Duke University School of
Medicine, Durham, North Carolina 27710
Received 7 February 2001/Returned for modification 13 March
2001/Accepted 2 April 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
To evaluate the performance of BacT/ALERT FA (FA) medium,
a new aerobic BacT/ALERT FAN (FAN) medium (Organon Teknika
Corporation, Durham, N.C.) that does not require the added cost and
inconvenience of a venting unit, we inoculated blood specimens
from adult patients with suspected sepsis into an original FAN aerobic
culture bottle and an FA bottle. Of 7,745 blood culture sets containing
both bottles, 5,256 (68%) met the criteria for adequacy of filling. A
total of 466 isolates judged to represent the causes of true infections
were recovered from 276 patients; 271 isolates were recovered from both
bottles, 82 were recovered from the FAN bottle only, and 113 were
recovered from the FA bottle only (P < 0.05). More
Burkholderia cepacia isolates (P < 0.01),
Candida albicans isolates (P < 0.001),
Cryptococcus neoformans isolates (P < 0.01), yeasts overall (P < 0.001), and total
microorganisms (P < 0.05) were recovered from FA
bottles. Of cultures found to be positive within the first 72 h of
incubation, the mean times to detection were almost identical for FAN
(20.4 h) and FA (20.7 h) bottles. Of 263 isolates that caused
monomicrobic episodes of bloodstream infections, 180 were detected in
both bottles, 32 were detected in FAN bottles only, and 51 were
detected in FA bottles only (P < 0.05). Of 186 isolates considered to be contaminants, 63 were detected in both media,
64 were detected in FAN bottles only, and 59 were detected in FA
bottles only (P was not significant). The number of
false-positive results were comparable: 69 (1.3%) in FAN bottles and
56 (1.1%) in FA bottles. However, there were 14 isolates with
false-negative results (6 yeasts, 6 nonfermenters, and 1 isolate each
of Propionibacterium acnes and coagulase-negative staphylococci) in FAN bottles, whereas there were none in FA bottles. On the basis of these results, we conclude that the new nonvented FA
bottle is superior to the original vented FAN medium for the recovery
of B. cepacia and yeasts, especially C. albicans and C. neoformans, and is comparable to FAN
medium for other microorganisms.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The detection of bacteremia and
fungemia is one of the most important functions of the clinical
microbiology laboratory. Modern automated detection systems have
increased the rate of isolation of pathogenic microorganisms with
improved formulations of media and computerized algorithms to detect
evidence of growth. Organon Teknika Corporation (Durham, N.C.)
developed an aerobic BacT/ALERT FAN (FAN) medium that increases the
rate of detection of microorganisms compared with that obtained with
standard medium in the BacT/ALERT microbial detection system. However,
in the current BacT/ALERT instrument, the bottles containing the
aerobic FAN medium require transient manual venting before incubation.
The venting unit requires additional time for the insertion and
transient venting of each bottle, requires care for avoidance of the
potential hazards due to the use of sharps, and adds additional cost.
Organon Teknika has developed a new aerobic FAN blood culture medium
that incorporates additional oxygen, thereby allowing the bottle to be
incubated without transient venting. The study described here was
designed to compare this new formulation (designated the BacT/ALERT FA
[FA] formulation) with the current FAN formulation for the detection
of bacteremia and fungemia in patients with suspected sepsis.
(This work was presented in part at the 99th General Meeting of the
American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, III., 1999 [S. Mirrett,
L. B. Reller, and R. J. Everts, Abstr. 99th Gen. Meet. Am.
Soc. Microbiol., abstr. C-495. p. 206, 1999].)
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Blood culture and collection.
Samples for blood culture were
collected from adult patients hospitalized at Duke University Medical
Center. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to the
study, and all blood cultures were performed as part of routine patient
care. Venipuncture sites were disinfected with alcohol and then
povidone iodine and were allowed to dry. Up to 30 ml of blood was
obtained with a sterile needle and syringe. Needles were not changed
before or between inoculation of blood culture bottles. Ten milliliters of blood was placed into each of three blood culture bottles: an
aerobic FAN bottle, the new nonvented FA bottle, and a BACTEC LYTIC/10
Anaerobic/F bottle (which was not part of the evaluation but which was
included for optimal recovery of microorganisms). A comparison of the
two medium formulations is shown in Table 1.
Adequacy of blood volume.
Upon receipt in the laboratory,
the volume of fluid in each bottle was measured against a volume
standard to determine how many milliliters of blood had been inoculated
into each of the FAN bottles. All bottles were processed regardless of
the volume of blood received. A bottle pair was included in the data
analysis if the blood volume of the bottle with the smaller volume was within 20% of the blood volume in the bottle with the larger volume.
Bottle processing.
After transient vent of the aerobic FAN
bottle, the two bottles were loaded into the BacT/ALERT Classic
instrument. Bottles flagged by the instrument as positive were removed,
and an aliquot of the blood-broth mixture was removed from the bottle
with a sterile needle and syringe. A portion was used for a Gram stain, and the remainder was subcultured onto solid plate medium according to
the results of the Gram stain. Subsequent microbial isolation, identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed
by standard techniques (2). Gram-stain-negative bottles were returned to the instrument for the remainder of the 5-day incubation period or until they were reflagged by the instrument. These
Gram-stain-negative bottles that were flagged by the instrument were
considered to have false-positive results if no microorganisms were
isolated on subculture. Bottles that were not flagged by the instrument
were incubated for a total of 5 days, and 20% of the first 2,000 FA
bottles were selected at random for terminal subculture to detect
false-negative instrument readings. Negative bottles for which the
companion bottle was positive were subcultured to determine whether the
instrument failed to detect the microorganism. Bottles that were
instrument negative but that grew a microorganism on subculture were
considered to have false-negative results.
Clinical assessment.
All isolates were reviewed by an
infectious disease physician or a pathologist and categorized as
clinically important, indeterminate, or a contaminant. These
assessments were made in accord with published criteria
(5). An episode of bacteremia or fungemia was defined as a
period beginning with the first positive blood culture and ending when
7 days (2 days for coagulase-negative staphylococci) had passed without
another positive blood culture with the same microorganism, regardless
of whether samples negative by culture were drawn in the intervening
days. When a second clinically significant isolate was detected within
3 days of isolation of the first isolate, the episode was considered
polymicrobial. Patients were considered to be on therapy at the time
that the blood sample for culture was drawn if the antimicrobial agent
given was either known or presumed, if susceptibility testing was not
routinely done, to inhibit the clinically significant microorganism
subcultured from the positive blood culture bottle.
Data analysis.
Comparison of recovery rates from the bottles
was done by the chi-square test. Yates' correction was used when
n was less than 20 (1). When both bottles were
positive within 72 h, the times to detection were compared by the
paired t test.
 |
RESULTS |
The laboratory received a total of 7,745 blood culture sets
containing both bottles. Of these, 5,256 (68%) met the criteria for
adequacy of filling. Among the isolates from adequately filled bottle
pairs, 466 isolates from 276 patients were classified as clinically
significant (Table 2). The FA bottle
detected more Burkholderia cepacia (P < 0.01), Candida albicans (P < 0.001), and Cryptococcus neoformans (P < 0.01)
isolates and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.05).
Results for subset of blood cultures from patients who were on
antimicrobial agents at the time that the blood sample for culture was
obtained are summarized in Table 3;
Staphylococcus aureus (P < 0.005) was
detected more often in the original FAN bottles, but yeasts were
detected more often in FA bottles (P < 0.005).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 2.
Comparative yields of clinically important microorganisms
in FAN versus FA aerobic blood culture bottles
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 3.
Comparative yields of clinically important microorganisms
from patients on antimicrobial therapy in FAN versus FA aerobic
blood culture bottles
|
|
The mean times to detection by the instrument of 261 isolates for which
both bottles were positive within 72 h are shown in Table
4. The overall mean times to detection
were almost identical for FAN (20.4 h) and FA (20.7 h) bottles. The
largest discrepancies were for coagulase-negative staphylococci (3.4 h
in favor of FAN bottles [P = 0.0043]),
nonfermentative gram-negative rods (3.5 h in favor of FA bottles
[P was not significant]), and yeasts (3.2 h in favor of FA
bottles [P was not significant]).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 4.
Comparative times to detection in FAN versus FA blood
culture bottles when both bottles were positive within 72 h
|
|
The FA medium detected more episodes of bacteremia and fungemia caused
by all microorganisms combined than FAN medium did, and specifically,
episodes caused by B. cepacia, C. albicans, and C. neoformans were detected more frequently in the FA medium (Table
5). Samples from an additional 36 polymicrobial episodes were not included in the analysis.
A total of 186 contaminant isolates were detected equally in the two
bottles, with 63 detected in both bottles, 64 detected in FAN bottles
only, and 59 detected in FA bottles only (P was not
significant). Isolates in 14 bottles with false-negative results were
detected when the negative companion bottle to a positive culture
bottle was subcultured after 5 days. All 14 isolates (4 Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 3 Candida glabrata, 2 C. albicans, and 2 B. cepacia isolates and 1 isolate each of C. neoformans, a coagulase-negative staphylococcus, and Propionibacterium acnes) from 11 patients were detected from FAN bottles with false-negative results.
All isolates except the coagulase-negative staphylococcus and P. acnes were considered clinically significant.
There were 69 (1.3%) FAN bottles with false-positive results and 56 (1.1%) FA bottles with false-positive results. No microorganisms were
isolated from the random sample of 402 negative FA bottles that were
subcultured at the end of 5 days of incubation.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Conclusions about the performances of diagnostic media formulated
for culture of blood are best based on clinical trials with control of
known variables and adequate numbers of comparisons to enable detection
of differences. These criteria were met in the current study.
The new nonvented formulation in the FA bottle showed improved
sensitivity for detection of B. cepacia and yeasts compared with that of the original vented FAN formulation (Table 2). This seemingly paradoxical improved yield from a nonvented bottle over a
vented bottle for microorganisms that are primarily aerobic may be
accounted for by the increased headspace in the bottle. Although the
nonvented FA bottles and the vented FAN bottles are both backfilled
with similar concentrations of oxygen (concentrations higher than the
20% oxygen found in ambient air) during production, the larger
headspace of the FA bottles results in an increased absolute volume of
oxygen. A recent report comparing nonvented with vented standard media
from Organon Teknika, however, did not show an improved yield in the
nonvented bottle, despite the increased oxygen level and the increased
headspace (3). This suggests that the FA medium, which
differs both in charcoal content and in the base medium used from the
original FAN formulation (Table 1), also plays a role along with the
increased volume of oxygen in the larger headspace to provide improved
recovery of microorganisms. Our experience with B. cepacia
bacteremia may differ from those of other institutions owing to our
lung transplant program's acceptance of patients colonized with
B. cepacia as potential candidates for transplantation;
however, yeasts are frequently isolated at many tertiary-care centers.
The improved rates of isolation of S. aureus in FAN medium
compared with that in standard (non-FAN) medium have been documented previously, especially from those patients receiving antimicrobial therapy (4). In the present study, S. aureus
isolates from patients on antimicrobial therapy were detected more
frequently in the original vented formulation of the FAN medium than in
FA medium. The original formulation of FAN medium contains 8.5%
(wt/vol) charcoal, whereas FA medium contains only 6.5% (wt/vol)
charcoal (Table 1). This suggests that one of the several possible
explanations for the differences may be either that S. aureus grows more readily with the higher concentration of
charcoal in the original formulation or that the higher concentration
is more effective in interfering with antimicrobial activity or other
inhibiting substances. Another explanation may be the increased
dilution of growth-inhibiting factors that could result from the
addition of blood to 40 ml of broth in FAN medium versus that from the
addition of blood to 30 ml of broth in FA medium (Table 1). Detection
of episodes of bacteremia with S. aureus, however, was not
significantly decreased by the lower concentration of charcoal in FA
medium (Table 5). The improved rate of recovery of yeasts observed in
the FA bottle for the subset of patients on antifungal therapy (Table
3) suggests that the presence of these agents had little effect on the
isolation of yeasts from this medium.
As shown in Table 1, there are many differences between FAN and FA
bottles. The potential individual influences of the differences in
headspace, concentration of charcoal, base medium, and volume of broth
between these two bottles have been discussed. The relative role of
each is impossible to assess, as is the difference between the sensors
for detection of growth. However, the principle behind both sensors is
the same, namely, the colorimetric detection of CO2
produced by growing microorganisms. The new liquid emulsion sensor was
designed to streamline the manufacturing process for the FA bottle.
The safety of not having to introduce a venting unit and the decreased
risk for injuries from sharps with the FA bottle are important
benefits, in addition to its increased rates of detection of B. cepacia and yeasts. Moreover, use of the FA bottle decreases the
amount of setup time required and reduces the additional costs associated with the vented bottle. Therefore, we conclude that the FA
bottle offers important safety benefits with an improved yield compared
with that of the original formulation of the FAN medium.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
This study was funded in part by a grant from Organon Teknika Corporation.
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the laboratory staff of the
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at Duke University Medical Center.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Clinical
Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Box 2902, Durham, NC 27710. Phone: (919) 684-2562. Fax: (919) 684-8519. E-mail: stanley.mirrett{at}duke.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
McNemar, Q.
1962.
Psychological statistics, 3rd ed., p. 209-239.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
|
| 2.
|
Murray, P. R.,
E. J. Baron,
M. A. Pfaller,
F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.).
1999.
Manual of clinical microbiology, 7th ed.
American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
|
| 3.
|
Snyder, J. W.,
K. S. Benzing,
G. K. Munier,
G. D. Bostic,
P. S. Bozigar,
R. Hanna, and M. J. Zervos.
2000.
Clinical comparison of nonvented aerobic BacT/Alert blood culture bottle and standard aerobic bottle for detection of microorganisms in blood.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
38:3864-3866[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Weinstein, M. P.,
S. Mirrett,
L. G. Reimer,
M. L. Wilson,
S. Smith-Elekes,
C. R. Chuard,
K. L. Joho, and L. B. Reller.
1995.
Controlled evaluation of BacT/Alert standard aerobic and FAN aerobic blood culture bottles for detection of bacteremia and fungemia.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:978-981[Abstract].
|
| 5.
|
Weinstein, M. P.,
M. L. Towns,
S. M. Quartey,
S. Mirrett,
L. G. Reimer,
G. Parmigiani, and L. B. Reller.
1997.
The clinical significance of positive blood cultures in the 1990s: a prospective comprehensive evaluation of the microbiology, epidemiology, and outcome of bacteremia and fungemia in adults.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
24:584-602[Medline].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2001, p. 2098-2101, Vol. 39, No. 6
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.6.2098-2101.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Flayhart, D., Borek, A. P., Wakefield, T., Dick, J., Carroll, K. C.
(2007). Comparison of BACTEC PLUS Blood Culture Media to BacT/Alert FA Blood Culture Media for Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Samples Containing Therapeutic Levels of Antibiotics. J. Clin. Microbiol.
45: 816-821
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Riley, J. A., Heiter, B. J., Bourbeau, P. P.
(2005). Comparative Recovery of Microorganisms from BacT/ALERT Plastic and Glass FA and FN Blood Culture Bottles. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 3244-3246
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Bourbeau, P. P., Foltzer, M.
(2005). Routine Incubation of BacT/ALERT FA and FN Blood Culture Bottles for More than 3 Days May Not Be Necessary. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 2506-2509
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Petti, C. A., Mirrett, S., Woods, C. W., Reller, L. B.
(2005). Controlled Clinical Comparison of Plastic versus Glass Bottles of BacT/ALERT PF Medium for Culturing Blood from Children. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 445-447
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Horvath, L. L., George, B. J., Murray, C. K., Harrison, L. S., Hospenthal, D. R.
(2004). Direct Comparison of the BACTEC 9240 and BacT/ALERT 3D Automated Blood Culture Systems for Candida Growth Detection. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 115-118
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Adler, H., Baumlin, N., Frei, R.
(2003). Evaluation of Acridine Orange Staining as a Replacement of Subcultures for BacT/ALERT-Positive, Gram Stain-Negative Blood Cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 5238-5239
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Everts, R. J., Vinson, E. N., Adholla, P. O., Reller, L. B.
(2001). Contamination of Catheter-Drawn Blood Cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol.
39: 3393-3394
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Krisher, K. K., Gibb, P., Corbett, S., Church, D.
(2001). Comparison of the BacT/Alert PF Pediatric FAN Blood Culture Bottle with the Standard Pediatric Blood Culture Bottle, the Pedi-BacT. J. Clin. Microbiol.
39: 2880-2883
[Abstract]
[Full Text]