| Literature DB >> 27242721 |
Brigitte Lamy1, Sylvie Dargère2, Maiken C Arendrup3, Jean-Jacques Parienti4, Pierre Tattevin5.
Abstract
Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a major cause of death in developed countries and the detection of microorganisms is essential in managing patients. Despite major progress has been made to improve identification of microorganisms, blood culture (BC) remains the gold standard and the first line tool for detecting BSIs. Consensus guidelines are available to ensure optimal BSI procedures, but BC practices often deviate from the recommendations. This review provides an update on clinical and technical issues related to blood collection and to BC performance, with a special focus on the blood sample strategy to optimize the sensitivity and specificity of BCs.Entities:
Keywords: blood culture; bloodstream infection; contamination; multi-sampling strategy; sensitivity; single sampling strategy; specificity
Year: 2016 PMID: 27242721 PMCID: PMC4863885 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Bacterial concentration in blood from adult bloodstream infections.
All studies from this table performed colony count using the pour plate or spread plate technique. As methodology varies between studies, concentration range and categories vary. Of note, the quality and fertility of culture media may have varied between 1916 and 1998.
Fungal concentration in blood from bloodstream infection.
Quality of bottle filling.
| Vitrat-Hincky et al., | < 8 | 65 | >10 | 13.0 | France |
| Willems et al., | < 8 | 26.2–36.0 | >12 | 7.6-12.8 | Belgium |
| van Ingen et al., | < 8 | 55.3 | – | – | The Nederlands |
| Coorevits and Van den Abeele, | < 8 | 28.0 | >12 | 23.2 | Belgium |
| Chang et al., | < 8 | 97.7 | >10 | 0.2 | South Korea |
| Lin et al., | < 7 | 28.3 | >10 | 13.3 | Taiwan |
| Mermel and Maki, | < 5 | 20 | – | – | USA |
| Chang et al., | < 3 | 48.4 | – | – | South Korea |
Data from 5 hospitals
Thresholds were defined as 2 mL below and above the recommended volume per vial.
Rate of solitary blood cultures.
| Gross et al., | 1 | 28.0 |
| Makadon et al., | 1 | 20.0 |
| Schifman et al., | 38 | 26.0 (median) |
| Schifman et al., | 909 | 10.1–12.1 (inpatients) 25.4–33.3 (outpatients) |
| Novis et al., | 333 | 12.7 (median) |
| Vitrat-Hincky et al., | 1 | 28.0 |
| Neves et al., | 1 | 23.2 |
Figure 1Blood culture result (negative or positive) according to the amount of blood cultured at each sampling and to the microbial burden in blood. The curve represents the bacterial concentration (β) in blood that varies with time and may be very low, but never null. The limit of bacteremia detection (BC sensitivity) is indicated with dotted line. Each sample is represented by a box. (A) Culturing low volumes of blood does not ensure sensitive testing and low detection threshold, and thus leads to uncertain bacteremia detection according to time of collection. The overall results suggest an intermittent bacteremia. (B) Culturing large volumes of blood ensures low detection threshold, thus allowing detecting bacteremia whenever the sample is obtained. One sample is enough for confidently detecting bacteremia; the overall results would suggest a continuous bacteremia.