Literature DB >> 6421896

Is the antimicrobial removal device a cost-effective addition to conventional blood cultures?

R Munro, P J Collignon, T C Sorrell, P Tomlinson.   

Abstract

Two hundred and thirty-four blood cultures from 140 patients receiving antibiotics were processed using the antimicrobial removal device (ARD) in parallel with conventional blood cultures. One hundred and seventy cultures were obtained from patients suspected to have bacteraemia and 64 from patients known to have a positive conventional blood culture within the preceding three days. A total of 38 (16.2%) ARD-processed cultures were positive, compared with 21 (8.9%) conventional cultures (p less than 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). No instances of positive conventional cultures and negative ARD-processed cultures were identified. Thirty-three of 38 ARD-processed cultures became positive within 24 h, compared with 14 parallel conventional cultures (p less than 0.0001 Fisher's exact test). Although the yield and rapidity of isolation of bacteria from blood were improved by ARD processing, in only one of 140 patients did this information alter treatment. As the use of an ARD is associated with a sixfold increase in the cost of blood cultures, we conclude that, in our hands, general use of the device in patients receiving antibiotics is not cost-effective. Considerable care should be taken in selecting patients for ARD-processing of blood cultures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6421896      PMCID: PMC498713          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.37.3.348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of the antimicrobial removal device when used with the BACTEC blood culture system.

Authors:  C L Strand
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.493

2.  Rapid isolation of bacteria from septicemic patients by use of an antimicrobial agent removal device.

Authors:  C Wallis; J L Melnick; R D Wende; P E Riely
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1980-05       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  The antimicrobial removal device. A microbiological and clinical evaluation.

Authors:  A J Wright; R L Thompson; C A McLimans; W R Wilson; J A Washington
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Evaluation of the Antibiotic Removal Device.

Authors:  M D Appleman; R S Swinney; P N Heseltine
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 5.  The role of the microbiology laboratory in the diagnosis and antimicrobial treatment of infective endocarditis.

Authors:  J A Washington
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 7.616

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Controlled clinical evaluation of BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F and BacT/Alert Aerobic FAN bottles for detection of bloodstream infections.

Authors:  J K Pohlman; B A Kirkley; K A Easley; B A Basille; J A Washington
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 5.948

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.