Cargando…

Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?

Standard blood cultures require at least 24–120 h to be reported as preliminary positive. The objective of this study was to compare the reliability of Gram staining and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) for detecting bacteria in otherwise negative blood culture bottles. Ninety-six sets were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Źródłowski, Tomasz, Sobońska, Joanna, Salamon, Dominika, McFarlane, Isabel M., Ziętkiewicz, Mirosław, Gosiewski, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32121353
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030346
_version_ 1783519628266307584
author Źródłowski, Tomasz
Sobońska, Joanna
Salamon, Dominika
McFarlane, Isabel M.
Ziętkiewicz, Mirosław
Gosiewski, Tomasz
author_facet Źródłowski, Tomasz
Sobońska, Joanna
Salamon, Dominika
McFarlane, Isabel M.
Ziętkiewicz, Mirosław
Gosiewski, Tomasz
author_sort Źródłowski, Tomasz
collection PubMed
description Standard blood cultures require at least 24–120 h to be reported as preliminary positive. The objective of this study was to compare the reliability of Gram staining and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) for detecting bacteria in otherwise negative blood culture bottles. Ninety-six sets were taken from patients with a diagnosis of sepsis. Six incomplete blood culture sets and eight blood cultures sets demonstrating positive growth were excluded. We performed Gram stain and FISH on 82 sets taken from post-operative septic patients: 82 negative aerobic blood cultures, 82 anaerobic blood cultures, and 82 blood samples, as well as 57 blood samples taken from healthy volunteers. From the eighty-two blood sets analyzed from the septic patients, Gram stain visualized bacteria in 62.2% of blood samples, 35.4% of the negative aerobic bottles, and in 31.7% of the negative anaerobic bottles. Utilizing FISH, we detected bacteria in 75.6%, 56.1%, and 64.6% respectively. Among the blood samples from healthy volunteers, FISH detected bacteria in 64.9%, while Gram stain detected bacteria in only 38.6%. The time needed to obtain the study results using Gram stain was 1 h, for FISH 4 h, and for the culture method, considering the duration of growth, 5 days. Gram stain and FISH allow quick detection of bacteria in the blood taken directly from a patient. Finding phagocytosed bacteria, which were also detected among healthy individuals, confirms the hypothesis that blood microbiome exists.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7143506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71435062020-04-14 Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”? Źródłowski, Tomasz Sobońska, Joanna Salamon, Dominika McFarlane, Isabel M. Ziętkiewicz, Mirosław Gosiewski, Tomasz Microorganisms Article Standard blood cultures require at least 24–120 h to be reported as preliminary positive. The objective of this study was to compare the reliability of Gram staining and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) for detecting bacteria in otherwise negative blood culture bottles. Ninety-six sets were taken from patients with a diagnosis of sepsis. Six incomplete blood culture sets and eight blood cultures sets demonstrating positive growth were excluded. We performed Gram stain and FISH on 82 sets taken from post-operative septic patients: 82 negative aerobic blood cultures, 82 anaerobic blood cultures, and 82 blood samples, as well as 57 blood samples taken from healthy volunteers. From the eighty-two blood sets analyzed from the septic patients, Gram stain visualized bacteria in 62.2% of blood samples, 35.4% of the negative aerobic bottles, and in 31.7% of the negative anaerobic bottles. Utilizing FISH, we detected bacteria in 75.6%, 56.1%, and 64.6% respectively. Among the blood samples from healthy volunteers, FISH detected bacteria in 64.9%, while Gram stain detected bacteria in only 38.6%. The time needed to obtain the study results using Gram stain was 1 h, for FISH 4 h, and for the culture method, considering the duration of growth, 5 days. Gram stain and FISH allow quick detection of bacteria in the blood taken directly from a patient. Finding phagocytosed bacteria, which were also detected among healthy individuals, confirms the hypothesis that blood microbiome exists. MDPI 2020-02-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7143506/ /pubmed/32121353 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030346 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Źródłowski, Tomasz
Sobońska, Joanna
Salamon, Dominika
McFarlane, Isabel M.
Ziętkiewicz, Mirosław
Gosiewski, Tomasz
Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?
title Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?
title_full Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?
title_fullStr Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?
title_full_unstemmed Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?
title_short Classical Microbiological Diagnostics of Bacteremia: Are the Negative Results Really Negative? What is the Laboratory Result Telling Us About the “Gold Standard”?
title_sort classical microbiological diagnostics of bacteremia: are the negative results really negative? what is the laboratory result telling us about the “gold standard”?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32121353
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030346
work_keys_str_mv AT zrodłowskitomasz classicalmicrobiologicaldiagnosticsofbacteremiaarethenegativeresultsreallynegativewhatisthelaboratoryresulttellingusaboutthegoldstandard
AT sobonskajoanna classicalmicrobiologicaldiagnosticsofbacteremiaarethenegativeresultsreallynegativewhatisthelaboratoryresulttellingusaboutthegoldstandard
AT salamondominika classicalmicrobiologicaldiagnosticsofbacteremiaarethenegativeresultsreallynegativewhatisthelaboratoryresulttellingusaboutthegoldstandard
AT mcfarlaneisabelm classicalmicrobiologicaldiagnosticsofbacteremiaarethenegativeresultsreallynegativewhatisthelaboratoryresulttellingusaboutthegoldstandard
AT zietkiewiczmirosław classicalmicrobiologicaldiagnosticsofbacteremiaarethenegativeresultsreallynegativewhatisthelaboratoryresulttellingusaboutthegoldstandard
AT gosiewskitomasz classicalmicrobiologicaldiagnosticsofbacteremiaarethenegativeresultsreallynegativewhatisthelaboratoryresulttellingusaboutthegoldstandard