Real-world Time to Positivity of 2 Widely Used Commercial Blood Culture Systems in Patients With Severe Manifestations of Sepsis: An Analysis of the FABLED Study.
bloodstream infection
microbiology
sepsis
time to positivity
Journal
Open forum infectious diseases
ISSN: 2328-8957
Titre abrégé: Open Forum Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101637045
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
16
06
2020
accepted:
14
08
2020
entrez:
2
10
2020
pubmed:
3
10
2020
medline:
3
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Of all microbiological tests performed, blood cultures have the most impact on patient care. Timely results are essential, especially in the management of sepsis. While there are multiple available blood culture systems on the market, they have never been compared in a prospective study in a critically ill population. We performed an analysis of the FABLED study cohort to compare culture results and time to positivity (TTP) of 2 widely used blood culture systems: BacT/Alert and BACTEC. In this multisite prospective study, patients with severe manifestations of sepsis had cultures drawn before antibiotics using systematic enrollment criteria and blood drawing methodology allowing for minimization of pre-analytical biases. We enrolled 315 patients; 144 had blood cultures (47 positive) with BacT/Alert and 171 with BACTEC (53 positive). Patients whose blood cultures were processed using the BacT/Alert system were younger (median, 64 vs 70 years; In this large prospective multi-centre study comparing the two blood culture systems among patients with severe manifestations of sepsis, and using a rigorous pre-analytical methodology, the BACTEC system yielded positive culture results 4.5 hours earlier than BacT/Alert. These results apply to commonly isolated bacteria. However, our study design did not allow direct comparison of TTP for unusual pathogens nor of clinical sensitivity between systems. More research is needed to determine the clinical implications of this finding.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Of all microbiological tests performed, blood cultures have the most impact on patient care. Timely results are essential, especially in the management of sepsis. While there are multiple available blood culture systems on the market, they have never been compared in a prospective study in a critically ill population.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed an analysis of the FABLED study cohort to compare culture results and time to positivity (TTP) of 2 widely used blood culture systems: BacT/Alert and BACTEC. In this multisite prospective study, patients with severe manifestations of sepsis had cultures drawn before antibiotics using systematic enrollment criteria and blood drawing methodology allowing for minimization of pre-analytical biases.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We enrolled 315 patients; 144 had blood cultures (47 positive) with BacT/Alert and 171 with BACTEC (53 positive). Patients whose blood cultures were processed using the BacT/Alert system were younger (median, 64 vs 70 years;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this large prospective multi-centre study comparing the two blood culture systems among patients with severe manifestations of sepsis, and using a rigorous pre-analytical methodology, the BACTEC system yielded positive culture results 4.5 hours earlier than BacT/Alert. These results apply to commonly isolated bacteria. However, our study design did not allow direct comparison of TTP for unusual pathogens nor of clinical sensitivity between systems. More research is needed to determine the clinical implications of this finding.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33005699
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa371
pii: ofaa371
pmc: PMC7518368
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofaa371Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Mar;45(3):816-21
pubmed: 17166960
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Apr;54(4):1148-51
pubmed: 26842707
Front Microbiol. 2016 May 12;7:697
pubmed: 27242721
Dan Med J. 2015 Jul;62(7):
pubmed: 26183054
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15;171(8):547-554
pubmed: 31525774
Lancet. 1999 Sep 25;354(9184):1071-7
pubmed: 10509498
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Apr;44(4):1342-6
pubmed: 16597860
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377
pubmed: 28101605
J Microbiol Methods. 2015 Aug;115:45-6
pubmed: 25940929
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;56(6):790-7
pubmed: 23223586