Blood culture diagnostics: a Nordic multicentre survey comparison of practices in clinical microbiology laboratories

OBJECTIVES

Accurate and rapid microbiological diagnostics are crucial to tailor treatment and improve outcomes in patients with severe infections. This study aimed to assess blood culture diagnostics in the Nordic countries and to compare them with those of a previous survey conducted in Sweden in 2013.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was designed and distributed to the Nordic clinical microbiology laboratories (CMLs) (n = 76) in January 2018.

RESULTS

The response rate was 64% (49/76). Around-the-clock incubation of blood cultures (BCs) was supported in 82% of the CMLs (40/49), although in six of these access to the incubators around the clock was not given to all of the cabinets in the catchment area, and 41% of the sites (20/49) did not assist with satellite incubators. Almost half (49%, 24/49) of the CMLs offered opening hours for ≥10 h during weekdays, more commonly in CMLs with an annual output ≥30 000 BCs. Still, positive BCs were left unprocessed for 60-70% of the day due to restrictive opening hours. Treatment advice was given by 23% of CMLs (11/48) in ≥75% of the phone contacts. Rapid analyses (species identification and susceptibility testing with short incubation), performed on aliquots from positive cultures, were implemented in 18% of CMLs (9/49). Compared to 2013, species identification from subcultured colonies (<6 h) had become more common.

CONCLUSIONS

CMLs have taken action to improve aspects of BC diagnostics, implementing satellite incubators, rapid species identification and susceptibility testing. However, the limited opening hours and availability of clinical microbiologists are confining the advantages of these changes.

Comparison of antibiotic treatment guidelines for urinary tract infections in 15 European countries: Results of an online survey

Appropriate antibiotic use for urinary tract infections (UTIs) is important in order to provide effective and safe treatment while minimising the risk of antimicrobial resistance development. This survey was carried out to compare existing national guidelines for UTIs in Europe. Experts in 37 European countries were asked to participate. An electronic questionnaire was used to obtain information on treatment recommendations, factors considered important when setting guidelines, acceptable resistance rates for empirical therapy, evidence grading, and existing resistance surveillance for uropathogens. Treatment guidelines and antimicrobial susceptibility data were collected. In total, 22 experts (59%) responded to the survey. National guidelines were missing in four countries and data were incomplete in three cases. Fifteen national guidelines published between 2004 and 2017 were included in the analysis. Great variability was found between guidelines in the selection of antibiotics, dosing regimens and treatment duration. For example, 10 different antibiotics were recommended as first-line therapy for uncomplicated cystitis. National surveillance data on antimicrobial susceptibility of uropathogens were available in 13 of 15 countries. Resistance epidemiology could not explain the observed differences between guidelines, and comparison of resistance rates was hampered by variations in methods. This study revealed major differences in treatment guidelines for UTIs within Europe, indicating that there are opportunities for improvement. More clinical research and a more systematic and stratified approach to resistance surveillance, including also antibiotics that are currently not available in all countries, is needed.