Controlled clinical comparison of three commercial blood culture systems.

In a controlled clinical comparison, three commercial blood culture systems--the standard aerobic BacT/Alert bottle (STD), the aerobic BacT/Alert FAN bottle (FAN) and the Isolator system (ISO; Wampole Laboratories, USA) were compared for their ability to detect aerobic and facultatively anaerobic microorganisms. A total of 945 BacT/Alert (STD and FAN) blood culture sets were compared. Of these, 110 blood culture sets (11.6%) yielded growth of 116 clinically significant bacterial and fungal isolates. Microorganisms were recovered from 10.7% (101/945) of the FAN bottles compared to 8.9% (84/945) of the STD bottles. Of the significant isolates, 78 (67.2%) were recovered by both bottles, 29 (25%) by the FAN bottle only and nine (7.8%) by the STD bottle only (P<0.01). Along with 56.1% (530/945) of BacT/Alert blood culture sets, a concomitant ISO tube was obtained. Of the triple (STD + FAN + ISO) blood culture sets, 54 (10.2%) yielded growth of 59 clinically relevant isolates. Microorganisms were detected in 9.1% (48/530) of the FAN bottles, 8.3% (44/530) of the STD bottles and 4% (21/530) of the ISO tubes (P<0.001). Overall, the BacT/Alert system detected more clinically significant microorganisms than the ISO tube; the STD and the FAN bottle each recovered significantly more staphylococci (P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively) and gram-negative rods (P<0.01, both). In conclusion, the BacT/Alert FAN bottle performed better than the BacT/Alert STD bottle; both BacT/Alert bottles, however, were superior to the ISO tube in terms of recovery of clinically significant microorganisms, including gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria.