Cargando…

2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on routine use of anaerobic blood cultures and the prevalence of patients with anaerobic bacteremia in Thailand. METHODS: Thammasat University Hospital is a 650-bed university hospital located in central Thailand. We implemented routine blood culture work up for ad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suwantarat, Nuntra, Apisarnthanarak, Anucha, Carroll, Karen C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253175/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1659
_version_ 1783373437032464384
author Suwantarat, Nuntra
Apisarnthanarak, Anucha
Carroll, Karen C
author_facet Suwantarat, Nuntra
Apisarnthanarak, Anucha
Carroll, Karen C
author_sort Suwantarat, Nuntra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are limited data on routine use of anaerobic blood cultures and the prevalence of patients with anaerobic bacteremia in Thailand. METHODS: Thammasat University Hospital is a 650-bed university hospital located in central Thailand. We implemented routine blood culture work up for adults using paired aerobic/anaerobic bottles using the BACTEC FX system (BD Diagnostics) as a standard practice. Gram stain and inoculation of positive blood cultures on aerobic and anaerobic culture media were performed and maintained in anaerobic conditions by the Anoxomat™ system (Mart Microbiology). Vitek2 system (BioMerieux) was used for bacterial identification. Data on positive blood cultures, bacterial identification, and time to positivity (TTP) between aerobic and anaerobic bottles were compared. Characteristics of patients with bacteremia were reviewed. RESULTS: During December 2016–October 2017, 323 blood culture sets were processed (one BACTEC anaerobic Plus bottle and two aerobic bottles). Majority of samples received were from patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (surgical ICU 28% and medical ICU 25%) followed by general medical unit (19%) and surgical unit (16%). There were 21 positive cultures from anaerobic bottles (21/323, 6.5%) vs. 30 positive cultures from aerobic bottle (30/646, 4.6%) (P = 0.3). Bacteria isolated from anaerobic bottles included Staphylococcus aureus (n = 8), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 3), viridans group streptococci (n = 1), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 8), and Escherichia coli (n = 1). Positivity rate of Gram-positive bacteria (GP) from anaerobic bottle was slightly higher than the rate of GP from aerobic bottle (12/203, 3.1% vs. 12/646, 1.9%; P = 0.08) There was no isolation of anaerobic bacteria. TTP from anaerobic bottles (mean of 15.6 hours, range 11–26 hours) was significantly faster than TTP from aerobic bottles (mean of 49.5 hours, range 13–100 hours) (P <0.001). The majority of the positive samples were from patients hospitalized in an ICU (16/21, 76.2%), especially in a surgical ICU (13/21, 61.9%). CONCLUSION: Our population had a low prevalence of anaerobic bacteremia. The anaerobic bottle significantly decreased the TTP compared with an aerobic bottle. The cost-effectiveness of routinely including an anaerobic blood culture bottle needs further study. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6253175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62531752018-11-28 2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand Suwantarat, Nuntra Apisarnthanarak, Anucha Carroll, Karen C Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: There are limited data on routine use of anaerobic blood cultures and the prevalence of patients with anaerobic bacteremia in Thailand. METHODS: Thammasat University Hospital is a 650-bed university hospital located in central Thailand. We implemented routine blood culture work up for adults using paired aerobic/anaerobic bottles using the BACTEC FX system (BD Diagnostics) as a standard practice. Gram stain and inoculation of positive blood cultures on aerobic and anaerobic culture media were performed and maintained in anaerobic conditions by the Anoxomat™ system (Mart Microbiology). Vitek2 system (BioMerieux) was used for bacterial identification. Data on positive blood cultures, bacterial identification, and time to positivity (TTP) between aerobic and anaerobic bottles were compared. Characteristics of patients with bacteremia were reviewed. RESULTS: During December 2016–October 2017, 323 blood culture sets were processed (one BACTEC anaerobic Plus bottle and two aerobic bottles). Majority of samples received were from patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (surgical ICU 28% and medical ICU 25%) followed by general medical unit (19%) and surgical unit (16%). There were 21 positive cultures from anaerobic bottles (21/323, 6.5%) vs. 30 positive cultures from aerobic bottle (30/646, 4.6%) (P = 0.3). Bacteria isolated from anaerobic bottles included Staphylococcus aureus (n = 8), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 3), viridans group streptococci (n = 1), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 8), and Escherichia coli (n = 1). Positivity rate of Gram-positive bacteria (GP) from anaerobic bottle was slightly higher than the rate of GP from aerobic bottle (12/203, 3.1% vs. 12/646, 1.9%; P = 0.08) There was no isolation of anaerobic bacteria. TTP from anaerobic bottles (mean of 15.6 hours, range 11–26 hours) was significantly faster than TTP from aerobic bottles (mean of 49.5 hours, range 13–100 hours) (P <0.001). The majority of the positive samples were from patients hospitalized in an ICU (16/21, 76.2%), especially in a surgical ICU (13/21, 61.9%). CONCLUSION: Our population had a low prevalence of anaerobic bacteremia. The anaerobic bottle significantly decreased the TTP compared with an aerobic bottle. The cost-effectiveness of routinely including an anaerobic blood culture bottle needs further study. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6253175/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1659 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Suwantarat, Nuntra
Apisarnthanarak, Anucha
Carroll, Karen C
2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand
title 2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand
title_full 2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand
title_fullStr 2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand
title_full_unstemmed 2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand
title_short 2003. Routine Use of Anaerobic Blood Cultures at Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand
title_sort 2003. routine use of anaerobic blood cultures at thammasat university hospital, thailand
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253175/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1659
work_keys_str_mv AT suwantaratnuntra 2003routineuseofanaerobicbloodculturesatthammasatuniversityhospitalthailand
AT apisarnthanarakanucha 2003routineuseofanaerobicbloodculturesatthammasatuniversityhospitalthailand
AT carrollkarenc 2003routineuseofanaerobicbloodculturesatthammasatuniversityhospitalthailand