Estimating bacterial load in S. aureus and E. coli bacteremia using bacterial growth graph from the continuous monitoring blood culture system.
E. Coli
S. Aureus
Bacterial load
Blood culture
Outcome
Journal
European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology
ISSN: 1435-4373
Titre abrégé: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8804297
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2024
29 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
22
04
2024
accepted:
02
07
2024
medline:
29
7
2024
pubmed:
29
7
2024
entrez:
29
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We examined whether the time to positivity (TTP) and growth and detection plot graph (GDPG) created by the automated blood culture system can be used to determine the bacterial load in bacteremic patients and its potential association correlation with disease severity. Known bacterial inocula were injected into the blood culture bottles. The GDPGs for the specific inocula were downloaded and plotted. A cohort of 30 consecutive clinical cultures positive for S. aureus and E. coli was identified. Bacterial load was determined by comparing the GDPG with the "standard" curves. Variables associated with disease severity were compared across 3 bacterial load categories (< 100, 100-1000, > 1000 CFU/mL). S. aureus growth was sensitive to the blood volume obtained whereas E. coli growth was less so. A 12-hour delay in sample transfer to the microbiology laboratory resulted in a decrease in TTP by 2-3 h. Mean TTP was 15 and 10 h for S. aureus and E. coli, respectively, which correlates with > 1000 CFU/mL and 500-1000 CFU/ml. For S. aureus, patients with a bacterial load > 100 CFU/mL had a higher mortality rate, (OR for death = 9.7, 95% CI 1.6-59, p = 0.01). Bacterial load > 1000 CFU/mL had an odds ratio of 6.4 (95% CI1.2-35, p = 0.03) to predict an endovascular source. For E. coli bacteremia, we did not find any correlations with disease severity. GDPG retrieved from the automated blood culture system can be used to estimate bacterial load. S.aureus bacterial load, but not E.coli, was associated with clinical outcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We examined whether the time to positivity (TTP) and growth and detection plot graph (GDPG) created by the automated blood culture system can be used to determine the bacterial load in bacteremic patients and its potential association correlation with disease severity.
METHODS
METHODS
Known bacterial inocula were injected into the blood culture bottles. The GDPGs for the specific inocula were downloaded and plotted. A cohort of 30 consecutive clinical cultures positive for S. aureus and E. coli was identified. Bacterial load was determined by comparing the GDPG with the "standard" curves. Variables associated with disease severity were compared across 3 bacterial load categories (< 100, 100-1000, > 1000 CFU/mL).
RESULTS
RESULTS
S. aureus growth was sensitive to the blood volume obtained whereas E. coli growth was less so. A 12-hour delay in sample transfer to the microbiology laboratory resulted in a decrease in TTP by 2-3 h. Mean TTP was 15 and 10 h for S. aureus and E. coli, respectively, which correlates with > 1000 CFU/mL and 500-1000 CFU/ml. For S. aureus, patients with a bacterial load > 100 CFU/mL had a higher mortality rate, (OR for death = 9.7, 95% CI 1.6-59, p = 0.01). Bacterial load > 1000 CFU/mL had an odds ratio of 6.4 (95% CI1.2-35, p = 0.03) to predict an endovascular source. For E. coli bacteremia, we did not find any correlations with disease severity.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
GDPG retrieved from the automated blood culture system can be used to estimate bacterial load. S.aureus bacterial load, but not E.coli, was associated with clinical outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39073670
doi: 10.1007/s10096-024-04893-w
pii: 10.1007/s10096-024-04893-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Waterer G, Rello J (2011) Why should we measure bacterial load when treating community-acquired pneumonia? Curr Opin Infect Dis 24(2):137–141. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0b013e328343b70d
doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328343b70d
pubmed: 21301334
Darton T, Guiver M, Naylor S et al (2009) Severity of meningococcal disease associated with genomic bacterial load. Clin Infect Dis 48(5):587–594. https://doi.org/10.1086/596707
doi: 10.1086/596707
pubmed: 19191644
Khatib R, Riederer K, Saeed S et al (2005) Time to positivity in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: possible correlation with the source and outcome of infection. Clin Infect Dis 41(5):594–598. https://doi.org/10.1086/432472
doi: 10.1086/432472
pubmed: 16080079
Kahn F, Resman F, Bergmark S et al (2021) Time to blood culture positivity in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia to determine risk of infective endocarditis. Clin Microbiol Infect 27(9):1345 e7-1345 e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.007
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.007
Ho YC, Chang SC, Lin SR, Wang WK (2009) High levels of mecA DNA detected by a quantitative real-time PCR assay are associated with mortality in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 47(5):1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01197-08
doi: 10.1128/JCM.01197-08
pubmed: 19279177
pmcid: 2681853
Loonen AJM, Kesarsing C, Kusters R, Hilbink M, Wever PC, van den Brule AJC (2017) High pneumococcal DNA load, procalcitonin and suPAR levels correlate to severe disease development in patients with pneumococcal pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 36(9):1541–1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-2963-2
doi: 10.1007/s10096-017-2963-2
pubmed: 28353184
Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Annu Rev Microbiol 3(1):371–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103
doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103
Suzuki H, Perencevich EN, Nair R, Livorsi DJ, Goto M (2020) Excess length of Acute Inpatient stay attributable to Acquisition of Hospital-Onset Gram-negative bloodstream infection with and without Antibiotic Resistance: a Multistate Model Analysis. Antibiot (Basel) 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020096
Minejima E, Mai N, Bui N et al (2020) Defining the breakpoint duration of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Predictive of poor outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 70(4):566–573. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz257
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz257
pubmed: 30949675
Nolte FS, Williams JM, Jerris RC et al (1993) Multicenter clinical evaluation of a continuous monitoring blood culture system using fluorescent-sensor technology (BACTEC 9240). J Clin Microbiol 31(3):552–557. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.31.3.552-557.1993
doi: 10.1128/jcm.31.3.552-557.1993
pubmed: 8458950
pmcid: 262818
Khare R, Kothari T, Castagnaro J, Hemmings B, Tso M, Juretschko S (2020) Active monitoring and feedback to improve Blood Culture fill volumes and Positivity across a Large Integrated Health System. Clin Infect Dis 70(2):262–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz198
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz198
pubmed: 30873522
Henning C, Aygül N, Dinnétz P, Wallgren K, Özenci V, Carroll KC (2019) Detailed analysis of the characteristics of sample volume in blood culture bottles. J Clin Microbiol 57(8). https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00268-19
Nau R, Eiffert H (2005) Minimizing the release of proinflammatory and toxic bacterial products within the host: a promising approach to improve outcome in life-threatening infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 44(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsim.2005.01.001
doi: 10.1016/j.femsim.2005.01.001
pubmed: 15780573
Diep BA, Afasizheva A, Le HN et al (2013) Effects of linezolid on suppressing in vivo production of staphylococcal toxins and improving survival outcomes in a rabbit model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus necrotizing pneumonia. J Infect Dis 208(1):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jit129
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit129
pubmed: 23532096
pmcid: 3666136
Khosrojerdi A, Soudi S, Zavaran Hosseini A, Ghaffari Khaligh S, Hashemi SM (2021) Imipenem alters systemic and liver inflammatory responses in CLP- induced sepsis mice in a dose-dependent manner. Int Immunopharmacol 93:107421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107421
doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107421
pubmed: 33548581