This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hellinger, W. C. Articles by Cockerill, F. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hellinger, W. C. Articles by Cockerill, F. R., 3rd

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Oct 1996, 2544-2547, Vol 34, No. 10
Copyright © 1996 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Assessment of routine use of an anaerobic bottle in a three-component, high-volume blood culture system

WC Hellinger, JJ Cawley, S Alvarez, SF Hogan, WS Harmesen, DM Ilstrup and FR Cockerill 3rd
Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Florida 32224, USA.

The relative value of routine anaerobic blood culture for recovery of organisms and identification of episodes of bloodstream infection was assessed in a three-component, high-volume blood culture system which employs aerobic and anaerobic bottles of BacT/Alert (Organon-Teknika, Durham, N.C.) and aerobic cultures of Isolator (Wampole Laboratories, Cranbury, N.J.). The results of 5,595 blood culture sets from patients with suspected bloodstream infection were analyzed. Compared with either the aerobic BacT/Alert bottle or aerobic culture of Isolator, the BacT/Alert anaerobic bottle recovered significantly fewer isolates (242 versus 294, P < 0.05; 242 versus 298, P < 0.05) but did not detect significantly fewer episodes of bloodstream infection (141 versus 157, P > 0.05; 141 versus 147, P > 0.05). The BacT/Alert anaerobic bottle recovered significantly more isolates of obligately anaerobic bacteria (16 versus 4, P < 0.05; 16 versus 0, P < 0.05) and detected significantly more episodes of bloodstream infection caused by obligately anaerobic bacteria (10 versus 3, P < 0.05; 10 versus 0, P < 0.05) than either the aerobic bottle of BacT/Alert or the aerobic culture of Isolator. The combination of the BacT/Alert anaerobic bottle and the aerobic culture of Isolator recovered as may isolates (374 versus 377) and detected as many episodes of bloodstream infection (194 versus 191) as the combination of the aerobic bottle of BacT/Alert and the aerobic culture of Isolator, and both of these combinations identified at least 8% more isolates and detected at least 3% more bloodstream infections than the combination of the BacT/Alert aerobic and anaerobic bottles. Further analysis of the data revealed that the utility of the BacT/Alert anaerobic bottle, especially when combined with the aerobic culture of Isolator, resulted from not only enhanced recovery of obligately anaerobic bacteria but also effective recovery of facultatively anaerobic bacteria. These results demonstrate the utility of the anaerobic BacT/Alert bottle for detecting bloodstream infection caused by either facultatively anaerobic bacteria or obligately anaerobic bacteria and support the routine inclusion of anaerobic blood culture in the three-component blood culture system used in our hospital.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Nicola, F. G., Weinstein, M. P., Lee, A., Reller, L. B., Mirrett, S. (2008). Assessing How Many Blood Cultures Are Needed for Detecting Bloodstream Infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1155-1156 [Full Text]