The BEST criteria improve sensitivity for detecting positive cultures in residual blood components cultured in suspected septic transfusion reactions.
Journal
Transfusion
ISSN: 1537-2995
Titre abrégé: Transfusion
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
07
01
2019
revised:
01
04
2019
accepted:
01
04
2019
pubmed:
24
4
2019
medline:
28
5
2020
entrez:
24
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Culturing residual blood components after suspected septic transfusion reactions guides management of patients and cocomponents. Current practice, accuracy of provider vital sign assessment, and performance of the AABB culture criteria are unknown. A multicenter international study was undertaken to investigate these issues and develop improved culture criteria. Retrospective data for all transfusion reactions resulting in residual blood component culture in 2016 were collected from participating hospitals. The performance of the AABB culture criteria were assessed for detection of positive culture results. Modifications to the AABB criteria including 1) recommending culturing in the setting of isolated high fevers, 2) defining hypotension and tachycardia using objective parameters, and 3) incorporating antipyretic use were tested to determine if modifications improved performance. Modifications associated with improvement were incorporate into the BEST criteria. The AABB and the BEST criteria were then tested against a data set enriched for positive culture results to determine which criteria were superior. Data were collected from 20 centers encompassing 779,143 transfusions, 3,187 reported transfusion reactions, and 1,104 cultured components. There was marked variation in reaction reporting and culturing rates (0.0%-100.0%). Of 35 total positive component cultures, only one of 35 (2.9%) had concordant patient cultures; 12 of 34 (35.3%) did not have patient cultures performed. The BEST criteria had better sensitivity for detection of a positive culture result compared to the AABB criteria (74% vs. 41%), although specificity decreased (45% vs. 65%). Compared to the AABB criteria, the BEST criteria have improved sensitivity for positive culture detection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Culturing residual blood components after suspected septic transfusion reactions guides management of patients and cocomponents. Current practice, accuracy of provider vital sign assessment, and performance of the AABB culture criteria are unknown. A multicenter international study was undertaken to investigate these issues and develop improved culture criteria.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Retrospective data for all transfusion reactions resulting in residual blood component culture in 2016 were collected from participating hospitals. The performance of the AABB culture criteria were assessed for detection of positive culture results. Modifications to the AABB criteria including 1) recommending culturing in the setting of isolated high fevers, 2) defining hypotension and tachycardia using objective parameters, and 3) incorporating antipyretic use were tested to determine if modifications improved performance. Modifications associated with improvement were incorporate into the BEST criteria. The AABB and the BEST criteria were then tested against a data set enriched for positive culture results to determine which criteria were superior.
RESULTS
Data were collected from 20 centers encompassing 779,143 transfusions, 3,187 reported transfusion reactions, and 1,104 cultured components. There was marked variation in reaction reporting and culturing rates (0.0%-100.0%). Of 35 total positive component cultures, only one of 35 (2.9%) had concordant patient cultures; 12 of 34 (35.3%) did not have patient cultures performed. The BEST criteria had better sensitivity for detection of a positive culture result compared to the AABB criteria (74% vs. 41%), although specificity decreased (45% vs. 65%).
CONCLUSION
Compared to the AABB criteria, the BEST criteria have improved sensitivity for positive culture detection.
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2292-2300Investigateurs
John Dagger
(J)
Emmanuel A Fadeyi
(EA)
Peter Flanagan
(P)
Birgit Gathof
(B)
Elizabeth A Godbey
(EA)
Mary Harach
(M)
Y Monique Huggins
(YM)
Tina S Ipe
(TS)
Bryon Jackson
(B)
Cyril Jacquot
(C)
Zhongbo Jin
(Z)
Mary Rose Jones
(MR)
Hany Kamel
(H)
Julie K Karp
(JK)
Antoine Lewin
(A)
Yunchuan Mo
(Y)
Mike Murphy
(M)
Jennifer O'Brien
(J)
Katharina Ommer
(K)
Monica B Pagano
(MB)
Michael Passwater
(M)
J Peter R Pelletier
(JPR)
Pierre Robillard
(P)
Joseph Schwartz
(J)
Lawrence Sham
(L)
Sara M Shunkwiler
(SM)
Julie S Simmons
(JS)
Julie Staves
(J)
Minoko Takanaski
(M)
Ralph Vasallo
(R)
Susan Weiss
(S)
Shelly M Williams
(SM)
Chisa Yamada
(C)
Pampee P Young
(PP)
Alyssa Ziman
(A)
Informations de copyright
© 2019 AABB.