JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Durmaz, G.
Right arrow Articles by Akgün, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Durmaz, G.
Right arrow Articles by Akgün, Y.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2003, p. 819-821, Vol. 41, No. 2
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.819-821.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Optimum Detection Times for Bacteria and Yeast Species with the BACTEC 9120 Aerobic Blood Culture System: Evaluation for a 5-Year Period in a Turkish University Hospital

Gül Durmaz,* Tercan Us, Aydin Aydinli, Abdurrahman Kiremitci, Nuri Kiraz, and Yurdanur Akgün

Department of Clinical Microbiology, Medical Faculty Hospital of Osmangazi University, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey

Received 3 June 2002/ Returned for modification 31 July 2002/ Accepted 17 November 2002


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Text
 References
 
We tracked and documented the time of positivity of blood cultures by using the BACTEC 9120 (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems) blood culture system over a 5-year study period. A 7-day protocol of the incubation period was selected, and a total of 11,156 blood cultures were evaluated. The clinically significant microorganisms (32.95%) were isolated in 3,676 specimens. Gram-positive and -negative bacterial isolation rates were found to be 41.07 and 44.88%, respectively. Yeasts were found in 14.03% of all pathogens. Both the false-positivity and -negativity rates were very low (0.1 and 0.3%, respectively). The mean detection times for all of the pathogens were determined to be 19.45 h. Yeasts, nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria, and Brucella melitensis strains were isolated within 5 days. By taking these data into account, we decided to establish a 5-day-incubation protocol in our laboratory instead of the 7 days that are commonly used.


   TEXT
Top
 Abstract
 Text
References
 
Bloodstream infection is one of the most serious problems in all infectious diseases. Despite recent developments, like nucleic acid probes, PCR, and other molecular techniques for microbiological diagnosis, blood cultures still remain the most practical and reliable method in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections. Blood culture is one of the most important tools in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Rapid isolation and identification of the microorganisms in blood samples and directing of the treatment accordingly are critically important in order to reduce the mortality rate (2). The fact that conventional methods are not sufficient for a low mortality rate has resulted in the extensive usage of various continually monitored blood culture systems in many clinical microbiology laboratories over the past 25 years. In the end, these systems were proven to be highly reliable. One of these, BACTEC 9120, is based on the monitoring of the CO2 concentration produced by growing microorganisms with a fluorescent sensor located at the bottom of each bottle (8). The aim of this study was to determine the detection times and the distribution of the bacteria and yeasts isolated from the blood samples by using BACTEC 9120 (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, Md.) over a 5-year period. We also had it in mind to analyze the data to decide which incubation protocol would be more suitable for practical purposes.

This study was conducted in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory of Osmangazi University Medical Faculty Hospital from August 1996 to December 2001. Most of the patients were adults from intensive care and hematology units. Two bottles were used in the culturing for every patient. All of the phlebotomies were performed with peripheral sticks, and the blood samples were drawn by a clinician by the bedside after cleansing the skin with 70% isopropyl alcohol and applying 10% povidone-iodine for 1 min. The blood samples were inoculated at a volume of 1 to 5 ml into BACTEC Peds Plus/F and a volume of 10 ml into Plus+Aerobic/F blood culture bottles and were placed in the BACTEC 9120 blood culture instrument. Because anaerobic blood culture bottles were not used in our laboratory, anaerobic blood cultures were not prepared. All study bottles were incubated for a period of 7 days. Whenever there was a sign of microbial growth, the detection time was documented. The bottles that had a positive signal were smeared and stained with Gram stain. Subcultures on chocolate agar and Sabouraud dextrose agar plates werealso used. Subcultures were incubated at 35°C for a duration of 48 h. When growth was detected, the bacteria were identified by using Sceptor (Becton Dickinson) or VITEK (Biomerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) identification panels and the yeasts were detected by using conventional microbiological procedures as well as the Mycotube method (BBL Diagnostics). Identification of brucellae was performed by H2S, urease production, and dye tests. Instrument-negative bottles were Gram stained and subcultured at the end of the 7-day protocol to confirm negativity. False-positive cultures were defined as those that were indicated by the instrument to be positive but had revealed no microorganisms by Gram staining and subculture (14). All isolates were considered to be clinically significant, except that a single positive culture of Corynebacterium spp., coagulase-positive staphylococci, viridans group streptococci, Neisseria spp. (other than N. gonorrhoeae and N. meningitidis), Bacillus spp., and Micrococcus spp. was identified to be a contaminant.

The time of detection was measured in hours, beginning with the placement of the bottles in the instrument and ending with the positive signal of the instrument.

A total of 11,156 blood cultures were inspected during the 5-year period. Clinically significant microbial growth was detected in a total of 3,676 cultures. The BACTEC 9120 instrument had 35 (0.3%) false-positive signals. The false-negativity rate was 0.1%. The organisms that were recovered from false-negative cultures included 1 Candida albicans strain and 11 Corynebacterium strains. A total of 233 specimens were positive for contaminant organisms, including the Corynebacterium and Micrococcus species (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Results for the 11,156 blood cultures

 
Microorganisms that were recovered from the blood culture bottles and the mean times for their detection are shown in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Detection times for pathogens isolated with 8ACTEC 9120

 
In the present study, the presence of pathogenic microorganisms was observed in 3,676 (32.95%) cultures taken from the 11,156 blood samples during the 5-year period. The gram-positive and -negative bacterial isolation rates were 41.07 and 44.88%, respectively. The members of the Enterobacteriaceae family were the most frequently isolated strains among the gram-negative bacteria. The gram-negative and -positive bacterial isolation rates obtained by Bayram et al. (2) with BACTEC 9240 were similar to our results in that Enterobacteriaceae were also found to be the most frequently isolated strains among the gram-negative bacteria. Tuncer et al. (12) concluded that the gram-positive bacteria were the most frequently found (70.7%) with BacT/Alert, but members of the family Enterobacteriaceae took first place among the gram-negative bacteria as in the present study.

Among the 1,510 gram-positive bacteria detected in our study, 900 were determined to be coagulase-negative staphylococci. Gray et al. (5) drew attention to a striking increase in the isolations of coagulase-negative staphylococci (47.7%) and Enterobacteriaceae (56.8%) in their study, conducted using the BACTEC 9240 blood culture system. All of our yeast isolates were Candida species, and in 14.03% of them, pathogenic microorganisms were detected. In the previous studies, these rates were reported to be 3.23 and 5.5% lower than the respective rates determined in our study (2, 12). The yeast isolations may differ with respect to the clinics from which the samples were obtained. As an example, it can be easily demonstrated that fungemia incidence is higher in intensive care units and hematology clinics (13). Because of the fact that most of the blood samples were obtained from intensive care and hematology units in our study, our Candida isolation rate was found to be higher than the other researchers' results mentioned above.

We found that the mean detection times for the gram-positive bacteria, the gram-negative bacteria, and the yeasts in this study were 18.83, 15.67, and 23.87 h, respectively. Cockerill et al. (3) found the mean detection time to be 23.0 h for all pathogens. Smith et al. (9) reported that the detection time of the yeasts is 41.0 h. The growth determined by using BACTEC 9240 has been detected in about 87 to 90.2% of the samples within the first 24 h (5, 9). During the 5-year period, 68.77% of all cultures containing pathogens were detected within the first 24 h of incubation.

In our 20 Brucella melitensis isolates, the mean detection time was found to be 63.87 h. Thirteen of them were isolated within the first 72 h. Gedikoglu et al. (4) reported that 72 h is needed for 31 samples and 84 h is needed for the rest of the samples for the growth of 58 B. melitensis isolates, which were isolated with BACTEC 9120. The detection time of B. melitensis was reported to be between 2 and 7 days in various studies (1, 10, 15, 16). We found that the recovery time was significantly shorter with BACTEC 9120. B. melitensis, which is endemic in Middle Eastern countries, including Turkey, is more virulent for humans than other species. Diagnosis of the disease is usually difficult because brucellosis may imitate other clinical symptoms such as rheumatic disorders, and thus, brucellosis should be confirmed by laboratory methods. From the clinical point of view, the rapid detection of brucella with the BACTEC 9120 blood culture system may lead to an earlier diagnosis of the disease and may improve case management (17).

In this study, the false-positive rate was found to be 0.3%, while Smith et al. (11) had reported a rate of 0.5% and Cockerill et al. (3) had reported a rate of 1.3%, both with BACTEC 9240. The false-negative rate was found as 0.1% in our study. The false-negative rate was reported to be 0.12% by using BACTEC 9240 in the research of Lelievre et al. (7). The low rate of false positives and negatives in our laboratory, together with the routine confirmation of results by microscopy and cultures, prevents many of the complications that may arise in practice.

The fact that the blind subculturing procedure of conventional methods has not been applied in the automated systems minimizes the risks of contamination. The most important advantage of this system is the time it gains for treatment, due to the rapid isolation, especially for slow-growing microorganisms (6). In our study, the vast majority of pathogens were recovered within 5 days, including Candida and Brucella spp. Only four isolates (one strain each of coagulase-negative staphylococci and Candidas tropicalis, two isolates of Corynebacterium spp.) were recovered after 5 days. Even though there is not sufficient published data regarding the optimal incubation time for this system, the data in our study suggest that a reduction of the 7-day incubation period that was typically applied with the BACTEC 9120 system to 5 days is possible, which in turn renders the BACTEC 9120 system a more effective tool.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Clinical Microbiology, Medical Faculty of Osmangazi University, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey. Phone: 90-222-2267786. Fax: 90-222-2395681. E-mail: gdurmaz{at}ogu.edu.tr. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Text
 References
 

  1. Bannatyne, R. M., M. C. Jackson, and Z. Memish. 1997. Rapid diagnosis of Brucella bacteremia by using the BACTEC 9240 system. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:2673-2674.[Abstract]
  2. Bayram, A., G. N. Alkan, and I·. Balci. 1997. Microorganisms isolated from a continuous monitoring blood culture system: BACTEC 9240. J. Turk. Microbiol. Soc. 27:64-67.
  3. Cockerill, F. R., G. S. Reed, J. G. Hughes, C. A. Torgerson, E. A. Vetter, W. S. Harmsen, J. C. Dale, G. D. Roberts, D. M. Ilstrup, and N. K. Henry. 1997. Clinical comparison of BACTEC 9240 Plus Aerobic/F Resin bottles and the Isolator aerobic culture system for detection of bloodstream infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:1469-1472.[Abstract]
  4. Gedikoglu, S., S. Helvaci, C. Özakin, F. Gökirmak, and K. Kiliçturgay. 1996. Detection of Brucella melitensis by BACTEC NR 730 and BACTEC 9120 systems. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 12:649-650.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Gray, J., M. Brockwell, and L. Das. 1998. Experience of changing between signal and BACTEC 9240 blood culture systems in a children's hospital. J. Clin. Pathol. 51:302-305.[Abstract]
  6. Huang, A. H., J. J. Yan, and J. J. Wu. 1998. Comparison of five days versus seven days of incubation for detection of positive blood cultures by the BACTEC 9240 system. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 17:637-641.[Medline]
  7. Lelievre, H., L. H. Gimenez, F. Vandenesch, A. Reinhardt, D. Lenhardt, H. M. Just, M. Pau, V. Ausina, and J. Etienne. 1997. Multicenter clinical comparison of resin-containing bottles with standard aerobic and anaerobic bottles for culture of microorganisms from blood. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 16:669-674.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Magadia, R. L., and M. P. Weinstein. 2001. Laboratory diagnosis of bacteremia and fungemia. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 15:1009-1024.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. McGowan, K. L., J. A. Foster, and S. E. Coffin. 2000. Outpatient pediatric blood cultures: time to positivity. Pediatrics 106:251-255.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Ruitz, J., I. Lorente, J. Perez, E. Simerro, and L. Martinez-Campos. 1997. Diagnosis of brucellosis by using blood cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:2417-2418.[Abstract]
  11. Smith, J. A., E. A. Bryce, J. H. Ngui-Yen, and F. J. Roberts. 1995. Comparison of BACTEC 9240 and BacT/Alert blood culture systems in an adult hospital. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:1905-1908.[Abstract]
  12. Tuncer, D., M. Gültekin, and G. Öngüt. 1997. BacT/Alert otomatize kan kültür sistemi ile alinan sonuçlarin degerlendirilmesi. Turk. J. Infect. 10:351-353.
  13. Vogel, F., A. Luth, and A. Charpentier. 1996. The impact of microbiological diagnostics on the antimicrobial treatment of hospitalized patients with infectious disease. Eur. J. Med. Res. 6:312-314.
  14. Washington, J. A. 1994. Collection, transport, and processing of blood cultures, p. 59-68. In M. L. Wilson (ed.), Clinics in laboratory medicine: blood cultures. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
  15. Yagupsky, P., N. Peled, J. Press, O. Abramson, and M. Abu-Rashid. 1997. Comparison of BACTEC 9240 Peds plus medium and isolator 1.5 microbial tube for detection of Brucella melitensis from blood cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:1382-1384.[Abstract]
  16. Yagupsky, P., N. Peled, J. Press, M. Abu-Rashid, and O. Abramson. 1997. Rapid detection of Brucella melitensis from blood cultures by a commercial system. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 16:605-607.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Yagupsky, P., N. Peled, and J. Press. 2001. Use of BACTEC 9240 blood culture system for detection of Brucella melitensis in synovial fluid. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:738-739.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2003, p. 819-821, Vol. 41, No. 2
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.819-821.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Durmaz, G.
Right arrow Articles by Akgün, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Durmaz, G.
Right arrow Articles by Akgün, Y.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS