This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Riley, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Bourbeau, P. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Riley, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Bourbeau, P. P.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2005, p. 3244-3246, Vol. 43, No. 7
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.7.3244-3246.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparative Recovery of Microorganisms from BacT/ALERT Plastic and Glass FA and FN Blood Culture Bottles

J. A. Riley, B. J. Heiter, and P. P. Bourbeau*

Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania

Received 23 December 2004/ Returned for modification 25 January 2005/ Accepted 9 March 2005

bioMerieux, Inc., has recently introduced plastic bottles to replace glass bottles for use in the BacT/ALERT blood culture system. We compared the performance of the plastic to the glass bottles in a large clinical evaluation. Two blood cultures were collected from each patient, one using glass FA (aerobic) and FN (anaerobic) bottles and one using plastic FA and FN bottles. Of the 4,040 sets of four bottles collected, 3,110 contained the recommended 8 to 12 ml of blood, yielding 524 microorganisms with 359 judged to be clinically significant. Of the 359 significant organisms, 255 were recovered in either one or two bottles from both pairs of bottles in a set while 56 organisms were recovered only from the glass bottles and 48 were recovered only from the plastic bottles (P, not significant [NS]). Of the 286 significant organisms recovered only in the FA bottles (glass and plastic), 180 were recovered in both bottles, 57 in the plastic bottles only, and 49 in the glass bottles only (P, NS). Of the 303 significant organisms recovered in the FN bottles only (glass and plastic), 212 were recovered in both bottles, 46 in the plastic bottles only, and 45 in the glass bottles only (P, NS). For individual organisms, the only significant difference in recovery was obtained for Escherichia coli, with more isolates recovered in the FN plastic than in the FN glass bottles (P = 0.02). These data suggest that recovery of microorganisms with plastic FA/FN bottles is at least equal to that with glass FA/FN bottles while offering greater safety for users.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Division of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA 17822-0131. Phone: (570) 271-7467. Fax: (570) 271-6105. E-mail: pbourbeau{at}geisinger.edu.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2005, p. 3244-3246, Vol. 43, No. 7
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.7.3244-3246.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



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]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»