OBJECTIVES: This article is a systematic review of the effectiveness of three practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates: venipuncture, phlebotomy teams, and prepackaged preparation/collection (prep) kits. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: Studies included as evidence were: 9 venipuncture (vs. versus intravenous catheter), 5 phlebotomy team; and 7 prep kit. All studies for venipuncture and phlebotomy teams favored these practices, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for venipuncture of 2.69 and phlebotomy teams of 2.58. For prep kits 6 studies' effect sizes were not statistically significantly different from no effect (meta-analysis mean odds ratio 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Venipuncture and the use of phlebotomy teams are effective practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates in diverse hospital settings and are recommended as evidence-based "best practices" with high overall strength of evidence and substantial effect size ratings. No recommendation is made for or against prep kits based on uncertain improvement.
OBJECTIVES: This article is a systematic review of the effectiveness of three practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates: venipuncture, phlebotomy teams, and prepackaged preparation/collection (prep) kits. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: Studies included as evidence were: 9 venipuncture (vs. versus intravenous catheter), 5 phlebotomy team; and 7 prep kit. All studies for venipuncture and phlebotomy teams favored these practices, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for venipuncture of 2.69 and phlebotomy teams of 2.58. For prep kits 6 studies' effect sizes were not statistically significantly different from no effect (meta-analysis mean odds ratio 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Venipuncture and the use of phlebotomy teams are effective practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates in diverse hospital settings and are recommended as evidence-based "best practices" with high overall strength of evidence and substantial effect size ratings. No recommendation is made for or against prep kits based on uncertain improvement.
Authors: J A DesJardin; M E Falagas; R Ruthazer; J Griffith; D Wawrose; D Schenkein; K Miller; D R Snydman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1999-11-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heike Raupach-Rosin; Arne Duddeck; Maike Gehrlich; Charlotte Helmke; Johannes Huebner; Mathias W Pletz; Rafael Mikolajczyk; André Karch Journal: Infection Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Gary V Doern; Karen C Carroll; Daniel J Diekema; Kevin W Garey; Mark E Rupp; Melvin P Weinstein; Daniel J Sexton Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Jennifer M Pynn; Elvira Parravicini; Lisa Saiman; David A Bateman; Jonathan M Barasch; John M Lorenz Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Sarah M Labuda; Vantha Te; Chivorn Var; Navapol Iv Ek; Sosorphea Seang; Alessandra N Bazzano; Richard A Oberhelman Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: D F J Dunne; R McDonald; R Ratnayake; H Z Malik; R Ward; G J Poston; S W Fenwick Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Miguel A Chavez; Satish Munigala; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Melanie L Yarbrough; David K Warren Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 5.948