Literature DB >> 23221187

Blood culture contamination: a randomized trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of 3 skin antiseptic interventions.

Laraine L Washer1, Carol Chenoweth, Hae-Won Kim, Mary A M Rogers, Anurag N Malani, James Riddell, Latoya Kuhn, Bernard Noeyack, Harry Neusius, Duane W Newton, Sanjay Saint, Scott A Flanders.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine relative rates of blood culture contamination for 3 skin antisepsis interventions-10% povidone iodine aqueous solution (PI), 2% iodine tincture (IT), and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG)-when used by dedicated phlebotomy teams to obtain peripheral blood cultures.
DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial with hospital floor as the unit of randomization.
SETTING: Teaching hospital with 885 beds. PATIENTS: All adult patients undergoing peripheral blood culture collection on 3 medical-surgical floors from May 2009 through September 2009. INTERVENTION: Each antisepsis intervention was used for 5 months on each study floor, with random crossover after a 1-month washout period. Phlebotomy teams collected all peripheral blood cultures. Each positive blood culture was adjudicated by physicians blinded to the intervention and scored as a true positive or contaminated blood culture. The primary outcome was the rate of blood culture contamination for each antisepsis agent.
RESULTS: In total, 12,904 peripheral blood culture sets were evaluated, of which 735 (5.7%) were positive. There were 98 contaminated cultures, representing 13.3% of all positive cultures. The overall blood culture contamination rate for the study population was 0.76%. Intent-to-treat rates of contaminated blood cultures were not significantly different among the 3 antiseptics ([Formula: see text]), yielding 0.58% with PI (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38%-0.86%), 0.76% with IT (95% CI, 0.52%-1.07%), and 0.93% with CHG (95% CI, 0.67%-1.27%).
CONCLUSION: Choice of antiseptic agent does not impact contamination rates when blood cultures are obtained by a phlebotomy team and should, therefore, be based on costs or preference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01216761 .

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23221187     DOI: 10.1086/668777

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol        ISSN: 0899-823X            Impact factor:   3.254


  10 in total

1.  A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2018 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology.

Authors:  J Michael Miller; Matthew J Binnicker; Sheldon Campbell; Karen C Carroll; Kimberle C Chapin; Peter H Gilligan; Mark D Gonzalez; Robert C Jerris; Sue C Kehl; Robin Patel; Bobbi S Pritt; Sandra S Richter; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Joseph D Schwartzman; James W Snyder; Sam Telford; Elitza S Theel; Richard B Thomson; Melvin P Weinstein; Joseph D Yao
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Chlorhexidine versus Tincture of Iodine for Reduction of Blood Culture Contamination Rates: a Prospective Randomized Crossover Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth Story-Roller; Melvin P Weinstein
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: A Comprehensive Update on the Problem of Blood Culture Contamination and a Discussion of Methods for Addressing the Problem

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

4.  Blood cultures in acute surgical admissions.

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

5.  Impact of hourly emergency department patient volume on blood culture contamination and diagnostic yield.

Authors:  Schuyler Halverson; Preeti N Malani; Duane W Newton; Andrea Habicht; Kenneth Vander Have; John G Younger
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 6.  How to Optimize the Use of Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections? A State-of-the Art.

Authors:  Brigitte Lamy; Sylvie Dargère; Maiken C Arendrup; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Pierre Tattevin
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.640

7.  Are Severe Mastitis Cases in Dairy Cows Associated with Bacteremia?

Authors:  Julia Brennecke; Ulrike Falkenberg; Nicole Wente; Volker Krömker
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 2.752

8.  Pathogens distribution and antimicrobial resistance in bloodstream infections in twenty-five neonatal intensive care units in China, 2017-2019.

Authors:  Jing Liu; Zengyu Fang; Yonghui Yu; Yanjie Ding; Zhijie Liu; Chengyuan Zhang; Haiying He; Hongli Geng; Weibing Chen; Guoying Zhao; Qiang Liu; Baoying Wang; Xueming Sun; Shaofeng Wang; Rongrong Sun; Delong Fu; Xinjian Liu; Lei Huang; Jing Li; Xuexue Xing; Xiaokang Wang; Yanling Gao; Renxia Zhu; Meiying Han; Fudong Peng; Min Geng; Liping Deng
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2021-08-16       Impact factor: 4.887

9.  Initial Specimen Diversion Device Utilization Mitigates Blood Culture Contamination Across Regional Community Hospital and Acute Care Facility.

Authors:  Mark D Povroznik
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 1.200

10.  Blood Culture Contamination: A Single General Hospital Experience of 2-Year Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Anna Tenderenda; Monika Łysakowska; Robert Dargiewicz; Anna Gawron-Skarbek
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.