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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |