Brit Long1, Alex Koyfman2. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacteremia affects 200,000 patients per year, with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. Blood cultures are considered the most sensitive method for detecting bacteremia and are commonly obtained in patients with fever, chills, leukocytosis, focal infections, and sepsis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide emergency physicians with a review of the literature concerning blood cultures in the emergency department. DISCUSSION: The utility of blood cultures has been a focus of controversy, prompting research evaluating effects on patient management. Bacteremia is associated with increased mortality, and blood cultures are often obtained for suspected infection. False-positive blood cultures are associated with harm, including increased duration of stay and cost. This review suggests that blood cultures are not recommended for patients with cellulitis, simple pyelonephritis, and community-acquired pneumonia, because the chance of a false-positive culture is greater than the prevalence of true positive cultures. Blood cultures are recommended for patients with sepsis, meningitis, complicated pyelonephritis, endocarditis, and health care-associated pneumonia. Clinical prediction rules that predict true positive cultures may prove useful. The clinical picture should take precedence. If cultures are obtained, two bottles of ≥7 mL should be obtained from separate peripheral sites. CONCLUSIONS: Blood cultures are commonly obtained but demonstrate low yield in cellulitis, simple pyelonephritis, and community-acquired pneumonia. The Shapiro decision rule for predicting true bacteremia does show promise, but clinical gestalt should take precedence. To maximize utility, blood cultures should be obtained before antibiotic therapy begins. At least two blood cultures should be obtained from separate peripheral sites.
BACKGROUND:Bacteremia affects 200,000 patients per year, with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. Blood cultures are considered the most sensitive method for detecting bacteremia and are commonly obtained in patients with fever, chills, leukocytosis, focal infections, and sepsis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide emergency physicians with a review of the literature concerning blood cultures in the emergency department. DISCUSSION: The utility of blood cultures has been a focus of controversy, prompting research evaluating effects on patient management. Bacteremia is associated with increased mortality, and blood cultures are often obtained for suspected infection. False-positive blood cultures are associated with harm, including increased duration of stay and cost. This review suggests that blood cultures are not recommended for patients with cellulitis, simple pyelonephritis, and community-acquired pneumonia, because the chance of a false-positive culture is greater than the prevalence of true positive cultures. Blood cultures are recommended for patients with sepsis, meningitis, complicated pyelonephritis, endocarditis, and health care-associated pneumonia. Clinical prediction rules that predict true positive cultures may prove useful. The clinical picture should take precedence. If cultures are obtained, two bottles of ≥7 mL should be obtained from separate peripheral sites. CONCLUSIONS: Blood cultures are commonly obtained but demonstrate low yield in cellulitis, simple pyelonephritis, and community-acquired pneumonia. The Shapiro decision rule for predicting true bacteremia does show promise, but clinical gestalt should take precedence. To maximize utility, blood cultures should be obtained before antibiotic therapy begins. At least two blood cultures should be obtained from separate peripheral sites.
Authors: Agustín Julián-Jiménez; Juan González Del Castillo; Eric Jorge García-Lamberechts; Itziar Huarte Sanz; Carmen Navarro Bustos; Rafael Rubio Díaz; Josep María Guardiola Tey; Ferrán Llopis-Roca; Pascual Piñera Salmerón; Mikel de Martín-Ortiz de Zarate; Jesús Álvarez-Manzanares; Julio Javier Gamazo-Del Rio; Marta Álvarez Alonso; Begoña Mora Ordoñez; Oscar Álvarez López; María Del Mar Ortega Romero; María Del Mar Sousa Reviriego; Ramón Perales Pardo; Henrique Villena García Del Real; María José Marchena González; José María Ferreras Amez; Félix González Martínez; Francisco Javier Martín-Sánchez; Pedro Beneyto Martín; Francisco Javier Candel González; Antonio Jesús Díaz-Honrubia Journal: Infection Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Brita Skodvin; Jannicke S Wathne; P Christoffer Lindemann; Stig Harthug; Roy M Nilsen; Esmita Charani; Heidi Syre; Baard R Kittang; Lars K S Kleppe; Ingrid Smith Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Marcello Covino; Alberto Manno; Giuseppe Merra; Benedetta Simeoni; Andrea Piccioni; Luigi Carbone; Evelina Forte; Veronica Ojetti; Francesco Franceschi; Rita Murri Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Signe Trille Sørensen; S M Osama Bin Abdullah; Rune Husås Sørensen; Ram Dessau; Niels Høiby; Finn Erland Nielsen Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2021-07-23