Controlled evaluation of BACTEC PLUS 27 and Roche Septi-Chek anaerobic blood culture bottles

The Performance of the Four Anaerobic Blood Culture Bottles BacT/ALERT-FN, -FN Plus, BACTEC-Plus and -Lytic in Detection of Anaerobic Bacteria and Identification by Direct MALDI-TOF MS

Detection and identification of anaerobic bacteria in blood cultures (BC) is a well-recognized challenge in clinical microbiology. We studied 100 clinical anaerobic BC isolates to evaluate the performance of BacT/ALERT-FN, -FN Plus (BioMérieux), BACTEC-Plus and -Lytic (Becton Dickinson BioSciences) BC bottles in detection and time to detection (TTD) of anaerobic bacteria. BACTEC Lytic had higher detection rate (94/100, 94%) than BacT/ALERT FN Plus (80/100, 80%) (p<0.01) in the studied material. There was no significant difference in detection of anaerobic bacteria among the remaining bottle types. The 67 anaerobic bacteria that signalled positive in all four bottle types were analyzed to compare the time to detection (TTD) and isolates were directly identified by MALDI-TOF MS. There was a significant difference in TTD among the four bottle types (p<0.0001). The shortest median TTD was 18 h in BACTEC Lytic followed by BacT/ALERT FN (23.5 h), BACTEC Plus (27 h) and finally BacT/ALERT FN Plus (38 h) bottles. In contrast, MALDI-TOF MS performed similarly in all bottle types with accurate identification in 51/67 (76%) BacT/ALERT FN, 51/67 (76%) BacT/ALERT FN Plus, 53/67 (79%) BACTEC Plus and 50/67 (75%) BACTEC Lytic bottles. In conclusion, BACTEC Lytic bottles have significantly better detection rates and shorter TTD compared to the three other bottle types. The anaerobic BC bottles are equally suitable for direct MALDI-TOF MS for rapid and reliable identification of common anaerobic bacteria. Further clinical studies are warranted to investigate the performance of anaerobic BC bottles in detection of anaerobic bacteria and identification by direct MALDI-TOF MS.

Evaluation of the BD BACTEC FX blood volume monitoring system as a continuous quality improvement measure

The yield of blood cultures is proportional to the volume of blood cultured. We evaluated an automatic blood volume monitoring system, recently developed by Becton Dickinson within its BACTEC EpiCenter module, that calculates mean volumes of negative aerobic bottles and generates boxplots and histograms. First, we evaluated the filling degree of 339 aerobic glass blood cultures by calculating the weight-based volume for each bottle. A substantial amount of the bottles (48.3%) were inadequately filled. Evaluation of the accuracy of the monitoring system showed a mean bias of -1.4 mL (-15.4%). Additional evaluation, using the amended software on 287 aerobic blood culture bottles, resulted in an acceptable mean deviation of -0.3 mL (-3.3%). The new software version was also tested on 200 of the recently introduced plastic bottles, which will replace the glass bottles in the near future, showing a mean deviation of +2.8 mL (+26.7%). In conclusion, the mean calculated volumes can be used for the training of a single phlebotomist. However, filling problems appear to be masked when using them for phlebotomist groups or on wards. Here, visual interpretation of boxplots and histograms can serve as a useful tool to observe the spread of the filling degrees and to develop a continuous improvement program. Re-adjustment of the software has proven to be necessary for use with plastic bottles. Due to our findings, BD has developed further adjustments to the software for validated use with plastic bottles, which will be released soon.

Controlled clinical comparison of BacT/alert FA plus and FN plus blood culture media with BacT/alert FA and FN blood culture media

New blood culture media containing antibiotic-binding polymeric beads have been developed for the BacT/Alert (bioMérieux, Inc., Durham, NC) blood culture system. To assess the performance of these new media, we compared the new BacT/Alert aerobic medium (FA Plus) with resins to BacT/Alert FA medium with activated charcoal and the new BacT/Alert anaerobic medium (FN Plus) to BacT/Alert FN medium at 3 tertiary care medical centers. Study bottle pairs were inoculated with a target volume of 6 to 10 ml of blood from adults and incubated in the BacT/Alert 3D blood culture instrument. In the FA Plus versus FA comparison, there were 1,507 study pairs. Among 170 isolates causing true bloodstream infections (BSIs), significantly more Staphylococcus aureus (P<0.001) and total microorganisms (P<0.01) grew in the FA Plus bottle than in the FA bottle. Fewer coagulase-negative staphylococcal (CoNS) contaminants grew in the FA Plus bottle than in the FA bottle (10 versus 22; P=0.05). In addition, growth was detected earlier in the FA Plus bottle than in the FA bottle (P<0.001). In the FN Plus versus FN comparison, there were 2,386 study pairs. Among 201 isolates causing true BSIs, significantly more S. aureus (P<0.001), CoNS (P<0.005), and total microorganisms (P<0.001) grew in the FN Plus bottle than in the FN bottle. Also, significantly more CoNS contaminants grew in the FN Plus bottle than in the FN bottle (P<0.001). Overall, microorganisms were detected earlier in the FN Plus than in the FN bottle (P<0.001). Medical technologists at all 3 study sites preferred the new media for Gram stain interpretation. We conclude that the FA Plus and FN Plus media provide improved and earlier detection of microorganisms compared with the FA and FN media and are preferable for Gram stain interpretation as well.

Reemergence of anaerobic bacteremia

BACKGROUND

During 1974-1988, the incidence of anaerobic bacteremia at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) decreased. This trend occurred nationally, prompting calls for discontinuation of routine anaerobic blood cultures. However, recently, the sites of anaerobic infection have been shown not to be as predictable as once thought, and since 1993, the incidence of anaerobic bacteremia has increased significantly in our medical center.

METHODS

Records from the Mayo Clinic Division of Clinical Microbiology were used to tabulate the number of cases of anaerobic bacteremia in patients at the clinic for the 12-year period from 1993 through 2004. Medical records for patients with anaerobic bacteremia were reviewed from the periods of 1993-1994 and 2004 to identify differences between these 2 patient populations with different rates of bacteremia.

RESULTS

The mean incidence of anaerobic bacteremias increased from 53 cases per year during 1993-1996 to 75 cases per year during 1997-2000 to 91 cases per year during 2001-2004 (an overall increase of 74%). The total number of cases of anaerobic bacteremia per 100,000 patient-days increased by 74% (P<.001). The number of anaerobic blood cultures per 1000 cultures performed increased by 30% (P=.002). Organisms from the Bacteroides fragilis group, other species of Bacteroides, and Clostridium species were most commonly isolated.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaerobic bacteremia has reemerged as a significant clinical problem. Although there are probably multiple reasons for this change, the increasing number of patients with complex underlying diseases makes the clinical context for anaerobic infections less predictable than it once was. Anaerobic blood cultures should be routinely performed in medical centers with a patient population similar to ours.

Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in medical, surgical, and critical care interventions, infective endocarditis remains a disease that is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The continuing evolution of antimicrobial resistance among common pathogens that cause infective endocarditis creates additional therapeutic issues for physicians to manage in this potentially life-threatening illness.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This work represents the third iteration of an infective endocarditis "treatment" document developed by the American Heart Association under the auspices of the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease of the Young. It updates recommendations for diagnosis, treatment, and management of complications of infective endocarditis. A multidisciplinary committee of experts drafted this document to assist physicians in the evolving care of patients with infective endocarditis in the new millennium. This extensive document is accompanied by an executive summary that covers the key points of the diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of infective endocarditis. For the first time, an evidence-based scoring system that is used by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association was applied to treatment recommendations. Tables also have been included that provide input on the use of echocardiography during diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis, evaluation and treatment of culture-negative endocarditis, and short-term and long-term management of patients during and after completion of antimicrobial treatment. To assist physicians who care for children, pediatric dosing was added to each treatment regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations outlined in this update should assist physicians in all aspects of patient care in the diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment, and follow-up of infective endocarditis, as well as management of associated complications. Clinical variability and complexity in infective endocarditis, however, dictate that these guidelines be used to support and not supplant physician-directed decisions in individual patient management.

Controlled clinical comparison of the BacT/ALERT FN and the standard anaerobic SN blood culture medium

To determine the optimal anaerobic companion bottle to pair with the BacT/ALERT (bioMerieux, Durham, N.C.) nonvented aerobic FA (FA) medium for recovery of pathogenic microorganisms from adult patients with bacteremia and fungemia, we compared the BacT/ALERT FN (FN) anaerobic bottle with the standard BacT/ALERT SN (SN) anaerobic bottle. Each bottle, FA, FN, and SN, was filled with 8 to 12 ml of blood. Of 11,498 blood culture sets received in the clinical microbiology laboratories at two university medical centers, 7,945 sets had all three bottles filled adequately and 8,569 had both anaerobic bottles filled adequately. Of 686 clinically important (based on previously published criteria) isolates detected in one or both adequately filled anaerobic bottles, more staphylococci (P < 0.001), including Staphylococcus aureus (P < 0.001); members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (P < 0.001); and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.001) were detected in FN bottles. In contrast, more Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates (P < 0.01) and yeasts (P < 0.001) were detected in SN bottles. More Bacteroides fragilis group bacteremias were detected only in the FN (six) than in the SN (one) anaerobic bottle (P = not significant). Overall, the mean time to detection was shorter with FN (16.8 h) than with SN (18.2 h). This difference in time to detection was greatest for the B. fragilis group: FN, 28 h, versus SN, 60.0 h. Many of the facultative microorganisms recovered in either FN or SN were also found in the companion FA. When microorganisms found in the companion FA bottle were omitted from the analysis, significantly more staphylococci (P < 0.001), including S. aureus (P < 0.001), and Enterobacteriaceae (P < 0.005) still were detected in FN bottles, whereas there were no significant differences for P. aeruginosa and yeasts, which were found as expected in FA bottles. We conclude that the companion anaerobic FN bottle detects more microorganisms than does the anaerobic SN bottle when used in conjunction with the nonvented aerobic FA bottle in the BacT/ALERT blood culture system.

Controlled clinical comparison of BACTEC plus anaerobic/F to standard anaerobic/F as the anaerobic companion bottle to plus aerobic/F medium for culturing blood from adults

To determine the optimal anaerobic companion bottle to pair with BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F medium for recovery of pathogenic microorganisms from adult patients with bacteremia and fungemia, we compared Plus Anaerobic/F bottles with Standard Anaerobic/F bottles, each of which was filled with 4 to 6 ml of blood. The two bottles were paired with a Plus Aerobic/F bottle filled with 8 to 12 ml of blood. A total of 14,011 blood culture sets were obtained. Of these, 11,583 sets were received with all three bottles filled adequately and 12,257 were received with both anaerobic bottles filled adequately. Of 818 clinically important isolates detected in one or both adequately filled anaerobic bottles, significantly more staphylococci (P < 0.001), streptococci (P < 0.005), Escherichia coli isolates (P < 0.02), Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates (P < 0.005), and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.001) were detected in Plus Anaerobic/F bottles. In contrast, significantly more anaerobic gram-negative bacilli were detected in Standard Anaerobic/F bottles (P < 0.05). Of 397 unimicrobial episodes of septicemia, 354 were detected with both pairs, 30 were detected with Plus Aerobic/F-Plus Anaerobic/F pairs only, and 13 were detected with Plus Aerobic/F-Standard Anaerobic/F pairs only (P < 0.05). Significantly more episodes of bacteremia caused by members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (P < 0.05) and aerobic and facultative gram-positive bacteria (P < 0.025) were detected with Plus Anaerobic/F bottles only. In a paired-bottle analysis, 810 of 950 isolates were recovered from both pairs, 90 were recovered from Plus Aerobic/F-Plus Anaerobic/F pairs only, and 50 were recovered from Plus Aerobic/F-Standard Anaerobic/F pairs only (P < 0.001). Paired Plus Aerobic/F-Plus Anaerobic/F bottles yielded significantly more staphylococci (P < 0.001), streptococci (P < 0.05), and members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (P <0.001). We conclude that Plus Anaerobic/F bottles detect more microorganisms and episodes of bacteremia and fungemia than Standard Anaerobic/F bottles as companion bottles to Plus Aerobic/F bottles in the BACTEC 9240 blood culture system.

Controlled clinical comparison of bioMérieux VITAL and BACTEC NR-660 blood culture systems for detection of bacteremia and fungemia in adults

A total of 9,446 blood cultures were collected from adult patients at three university-affiliated hospitals. Of these, 8,943 cultures were received with both aerobic bottles filled adequately; 885 yielded 1,016 microorganisms, including 622 isolates (61%) that were the cause of sepsis, 337 isolates (33%) that were contaminants, and 57 isolates (6%) that were indeterminate as the cause of sepsis. With the exception of Staphylococcus aureus, which was recovered more often from VITAL aerobic bottles, more pathogenic microorganisms were recovered from BACTEC NR6 (aerobic) bottles than from VITAL aerobic bottles. Growth of pathogenic microorganisms was detected earlier in VITAL aerobic bottles. A total of 8,647 blood cultures were received with both anaerobic bottles filled adequately; 655 yielded 740 microorganisms, including 486 isolates (66%) that were the cause of sepsis, 215 isolates (29%) that were contaminants, and 39 isolates (6%) that were indeterminate as the cause of sepsis. More pathogenic microorganisms were recovered from VITAL anaerobic bottles than from BACTEC NR7 (anaerobic) bottles. Growth of pathogenic microorganisms was detected earlier in VITAL anaerobic bottles. In 8,500 sets all four bottles were received adequately filled. When paired aerobic and anaerobic bottle sets (systems) were compared, more pathogenic microorganisms (again with the exception of S. aureus) were recovered from the BACTEC system. For the 304 septic episodes (253 unimicrobial and 51 polymicrobial), significantly more were detected by the BACTEC system. We conclude that VITAL requires modification to improve recovery of pathogenic microorganisms to make it competitive with other commercially available blood culture systems.

Comparison of BACTEC plus Aerobic/F, Anaerobic/F, Peds Plus/F, and Lytic/F media with and without fastidious organism supplement to conventional methods for culture of sterile body fluids

We compared the BACTEC 9240 continuous-read instrument using Peds Plus/F, Lytic/F, Aerobic/F, and Anaerobic/F media (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, MD) with and without fastidious organism supplement to conventional centrifugation preparation and plating for the recovery and speed of detection of microorganisms. A total of 908 sterile body fluid specimens were collected and processed, yielding 116 (13%) positive cultures. Of the 80 isolates considered clinically significant, 48 (60%) were recovered by both the BACTEC system and conventional culture, whereas 32 (40%) were recovered by BACTEC only. No clinically significant isolates were recovered only by conventional culture methods. The time to detection for isolates recovered from both sets was faster for BACTEC. It was found that BACTEC, with or without the addition of fastidious organisms supplement, exhibited improved sensitivity for the recovery of microorganisms.

Update on detection of bacteremia and fungemia

The presence of microorganisms in a patient's blood is a critical determinant of the severity of the patient's illness. Equally important, the laboratory isolation and identification of a microorganism present in blood determine the etiologic agent of infection, especially when the site of infection is localized and difficult to access. This review addresses the pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of bacteremia, fungemia, and sepsis; diagnostic strategies and critical factors in the detection of positive blood cultures; characteristics of manual and instrument approaches to bacteremia detection; approaches for isolating specific microorganisms associated with positive blood cultures; and rapid methods for the identification of microorganisms in blood cultures.

Controlled clinical laboratory comparison of BACTEC plus aerobic/F resin medium with BacT/Alert aerobic FAN medium for detection of bacteremia and fungemia

Blood specimens collected from adult patients with suspected sepsis in four medical centers were inoculated into BACTEC Plus/F and BacT/Alert FAN aerobic culture bottles. Both bottles of 7,401 bottle pairs contained the prescribed blood volume of 8 to 12 ml. Bottles were incubated in their respective instruments for a standard 7-day protocol or until the instruments signaled that they were positive. A total of 720 isolates that were judged to represent true infections were recovered from 338 patients; 451 isolates were recovered from both bottles, 143 were recovered from only the Plus/F bottle, and 126 were recovered from only the FAN bottle (P was not significant). Although more Histoplasma capsulatum isolates were recovered from Plus/F bottles (P < 0.005), there were no other statistically significant differences in recovery rates of individual species or groups of organisms between the two systems. Of 329 monomicrobic patient septic episodes, 244 episodes were detected by both blood culture systems, 40 were detected only by the BACTEC system, and 45 were detected only by the BacT/Alert system (P was not significant). There was no significant difference between the two systems in the detection of septic episodes among patients receiving antibiotic therapy at the time of blood cultures. Of the cultures found to be positive within the first 72 h of incubation, detection was on average earlier by the BACTEC system (16.9 h) than by the BacT/Alert system (18.7 h). Larger differences in average time to detection were seen with streptococci (10.7 h by the BACTEC system and 17.9 h by the BacT/Alert system) and yeasts (an average of 29.4 h by the BacT/Alert system versus 37.2 h by the BACTEC system). With the exception of the differences noted above, BACTEC Plus/F aerobic resin and BacT/Alert aerobic FAN blood culture bottles were comparable in their abilities to recover aerobic and facultative organisms.

Clinical importance of increased sensitivity of BacT/Alert FAN aerobic and anaerobic blood culture bottles

Two recent multicenter blood culture studies found that BacT/Alert FAN (FAN) bottles (Organon Teknika, Durham, N.C.) had increased yields in detecting bacteremia and fungemia compared with standard BacT/Alert (STD) bottles. Because the clinical importance of this increase in microbial recovery is unknown, we performed a retrospective analysis to determine the frequency with which FAN bottles were the sole means of detecting an episode of bacteremia. There were 1,047 positive blood cultures in which both study bottles were adequately filled and the organism isolated was judged to be the cause of sepsis: 240 (23%) were positive only in FAN bottles and 73 (7%) were positive only in STD bottles. Of a total of 664 episodes of bacteremia, 126 (19%) were identified only by FAN bottles and 43 (7%) were identified only by STD bottles (P < 0.0001). Episodes detected only by FAN bottles more often were recurrent events (23 of 126, or 18%) than episodes detected only by STD bottles (2 of 43, or 5%) (P < 0.05) and more commonly occurred in patients receiving theoretically effective antibiotic therapy (33 of 126 [26%] versus 4 of 43 [9%]) (P < 0.05). The medical records for patients with 127 of these episodes (92 FAN bottles only; 35 STD bottles only) were available for review. More than half of both FAN bottle-only (60 of 92, or 65%) and STD bottle-only (20 of 35, or 57%) episodes were judged to be clinically important. We conclude that FAN bottles improve the detection of bacteremia and that the majority of the additional episodes detected are clinically important. The benefits of the greater yield in specific patient populations must be balanced against the higher costs of FAN bottles.

Controlled evaluation of BacT/alert standard anaerobic and FAN anaerobic blood culture bottles for the detection of bacteremia and fungemia

FAN medium was formulated to improve microbial recovery, particularly for fastidious microorganisms and for microorganisms causing sepsis in patients receiving antimicrobial therapy. In a controlled clinical evaluation performed at four university-affiliated hospitals, FAN anaerobic bottles were compared with standard anaerobic bottles for yield, speed of detection of microbial growth, and detection of septic episodes. A total of 10,431 blood culture sets were received; both anaerobic bottles of 7,694 blood culture sets were adequately filled with blood. Altogether, 925 isolates were recovered: 557 that were the cause of sepsis, 99 that were indeterminate as the cause of sepsis, and 269 contaminants. More Staphylococcus aureus (P < 0.001), coagulase-negative staphylococci (P < 0.001), Escherichia coli (P < 0.02), and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.005) were recovered from FAN bottles; more nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli (P < 0.05), Torulopsis glabrata (P < 0.001), and other yeasts (P < 0.01) were recovered from standard bottles. Growth of S. aureus (P < 0.001), coagulase-negative staphylococci (P < 0.001), Enterococcus faecalis (P < 0.025), streptococci other than Streptococcus pneumoniae (P < 0.01), and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.001) was detected earlier in standard bottles; growth of more isolates of E. coli (P < 0.05) and anaerobic bacteria (P < 0.01) was detected earlier in FAN bottles. The mean times to detection were 14.2 and 16.1 h for standard and FAN bottles, respectively. More septic episodes caused by S. aureus (P < 0.001), coagulase-negative staphylococci (P < 0.005), members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (P < 0.02), and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.02) were detected in FAN bottles; more septic episodes caused by nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli (P < 0.025) and yeasts (P < 0.005) were detected in standard bottles. In summary, more isolates (except for strict aerobes) were recovered from FAN bottles than from standard anaerobic bottles. Similarly, significant more septic episodes (except for those caused by strict aerobes) were detected with FAN bottles than with standard anaerobic bottles. With the exception of E. coli and anaerobic bacteria, growth of more isolates was detected earlier in standard anaerobic bottles.

Detection kinetics for positive blood culture bottles by using the VITAL automated system

The VITAL system principle is based on homogeneous fluorescence technology. During an 11-month period, a total of 19,706 blood cultures from adult patients hospitalized in various establishments of the Montpellier Teaching Hospital were collected in VITAL bottles, of which 1,939 were declared positive. Only 204 bottles (1.04%) were false positives. The 1,735 true-positive bottles were collected from 130 patients. The final visual control permitted the detection of 10 falsely negative bottles (0.05%), of which 5 contained clinically significant microorganisms from four patients. The kinetics of detection for all microorganisms showed that 66.6% were detected within 24 h, 83.1% within 48 h, 95.5% within 120 h, and 100% within 150 h. No clinical episode would have been missed had a 5-day protocol been used instead of a 7-day protocol. Among the positive bottles, 65.7% were detected by the SLOPE algorithm, 20.1% by the DELTA algorithm, and 14.2% by the THRESHOLD algorithm. This retrospective study of our results shows that a 5-day protocol is sufficient for the detection of septic episodes using the VITAL system.

Value of terminal subcultures for blood cultures monitored by BACTEC 9240

Blood cultures collected in BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F bottles and BACTEC Plus Anaerobic/F bottles were monitored for 5 days by BACTEC 9240 and subsequent terminal subcultures. Of the 13,471 bottles subcultured, 11.0% (1,477 of 13,471) were culture positive. Of these, 94.0% (1,388 of 1,477) were detected by BACTEC 9240; the additional 6.0% (89 of 1,477) were considered to be false negatives by BACTEC 9240 since they were detected by terminal subculture only. The false-negative bottles consisted of 17 BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F and 72 BACTEC Plus Anaerobic/F bottles, accounting for 2.2 (17 of 786) and 10.4% (72 of 691) of the total positive aerobic and anaerobic bottles, respectively. The positive blood culture bottles most frequently not detected by BACTEC 9240 grew Pseudomonas spp. (24), Staphylococcus spp. (21), and yeasts (24). Of the 86 blood cultures represented by the 89 false-negative bottles, 41 would not have been identified as positive since the other bottle in the blood culture set was either a false negative or a true negative. In general, terminal subcultures of false-negative BACTEC bottles had heavy growth, indicating that BACTEC Plus media were able to support the growth of microorganisms, but the BACTEC 9240 instrument was unable to detect this growth.

Controlled evaluation of BacT/Alert standard aerobic and FAN aerobic blood culture bottles for detection of bacteremia and fungemia

A new medium, FAN, designed to enhance the recovery of microorganisms, has been developed for the BacT/Alert blood culture system (Organon Teknika Corp., Durham, N.C.). We compared the yield and speed of detection of microorganisms in 6,847 adequately filled paired aerobic standard and FAN bottles at four university hospitals. Of 499 clinically significant microorganisms isolated from one or both bottles, significantly more Staphylococcus aureus isolates (P < 0.001), coagulase-negative staphylococci (P < 0.001), yeasts (P < 0.01), and all microorganisms combined (P < 0.001) were recovered from the FAN bottles. Overall, the speeds of detection of positive cultures did not differ between the two medium formulations; mean times to detection in the standard and FAN bottles were 16.1 and 16.0 h, respectively. When a subset of patients on antimicrobial therapy was evaluated, significantly enhanced yield from the FAN bottle was evident for staphylococci. Overall, the FAN bottle outperformed the standard aerobic BacT/Alert bottle.

Recovery of clinically important microorganisms from the BacT/Alert blood culture system does not require testing for seven days

Recently, we published a comparison of the BacT/Alert blood culture system with the BACTEC 660/730 nonradiometric blood culture system using blood inocula of 5 ml per bottle. By reanalyzing data collected during that study, we found that, for true-positive isolates causing bacteremia or fungemia, 363 (97.6%) of 376 and 341 (97.7%) of 349 isolates were recovered by the end of day 5 of testing, and 364 (97.9%) of 376 and 343 (98.3%) of 349 isolates were recovered by the end of day 6 of testing for aerobic and anaerobic bottles, respectively. Most isolates recovered on days 6 (24 of 27) and 7 (20 of 25) of testing were either contaminants or indeterminate as a cause of sepsis. When used as recommended by the manufacturer, only six (1.3%) of 464 clinically important isolates recovered on test days 6-7 would have gone undetected had testing been limited to 5 days and four (0.9%) of 464 had testing been limited to 6 days. We conclude that BacT/Alert bottles can be tested for as few as 5 days and then discarded with minimal loss of true-positive isolates and maximal reduction of contaminants.