Comparison of BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F Media and BacT/ Alert FA Media to Detect Bacteria in Blood Culture Bottles Containing Peak Therapeutic Levels of Antimicrobials

Jin Young Lee, J. Hong, Miae Lee
{"title":"Comparison of BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F Media and BacT/ Alert FA Media to Detect Bacteria in Blood Culture Bottles Containing Peak Therapeutic Levels of Antimicrobials","authors":"Jin Young Lee, J. Hong, Miae Lee","doi":"10.5145/KJCM.2010.13.4.151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blood culture bottles with an antimicrobial removal system have been developed for patients treated with antibiotics. This study compared the ability of BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F bottles (Becton Dickinson, USA, BACTEC Plus) and BacT/Alert FA bottles (bioMerieux Vitek, France) to effectively remove antimicrobials. Methods: BACTEC Plus and BacT/Alert FA bottles were spiked with 5 mL human blood, peak therapeutic concentrations of 9 antimicrobials and 7 type strains. Three rounds of duplicate testing were completed per antimicrobial/strain combination and growth control without antimicrobials. The time to detection (TTD) and recovery rates for bacteria were compared for both systems. Results: Overall, the BACTEC Plus and BacT/Alert FA recovered 76% (128/168) and 34% (57/168) of strains from test bottles, respectively. BACTEC Plus detected all of gram-positive bacteria except S. pneumoniae with ampicillin and ceftriaxone, but BacT/Alert FA detected 0∼50% of gram-positive bacteria except E. faecalis with vancomycin and methicillin-resistant S. aureus with oxacillin. In presence of cefepime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin and ceftriaxone, BACTEC Plus detected 33∼100% of gram-negative bacteria, but BacT/ Alert FA did not detect gram-negative bacteria at all. In presence of ciprofloxacin, BacT/Alert FA detected 100% of E. coli and K. pneumoniae compared with 33% of those for BACTEC Plus. Overall, TTD of BACTEC Plus was shorter than that of BacT/Alert FA except in detecting gram-negative bacteria with ciprofloxacin (P<0.05). Conclusion: BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F media containing peak therapeutic levels of antimicrobials are more effective and faster detection of bacteria than BacT/ Alert FA media. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2010;13: 151-156)","PeriodicalId":143093,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2010.13.4.151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Blood culture bottles with an antimicrobial removal system have been developed for patients treated with antibiotics. This study compared the ability of BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F bottles (Becton Dickinson, USA, BACTEC Plus) and BacT/Alert FA bottles (bioMerieux Vitek, France) to effectively remove antimicrobials. Methods: BACTEC Plus and BacT/Alert FA bottles were spiked with 5 mL human blood, peak therapeutic concentrations of 9 antimicrobials and 7 type strains. Three rounds of duplicate testing were completed per antimicrobial/strain combination and growth control without antimicrobials. The time to detection (TTD) and recovery rates for bacteria were compared for both systems. Results: Overall, the BACTEC Plus and BacT/Alert FA recovered 76% (128/168) and 34% (57/168) of strains from test bottles, respectively. BACTEC Plus detected all of gram-positive bacteria except S. pneumoniae with ampicillin and ceftriaxone, but BacT/Alert FA detected 0∼50% of gram-positive bacteria except E. faecalis with vancomycin and methicillin-resistant S. aureus with oxacillin. In presence of cefepime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin and ceftriaxone, BACTEC Plus detected 33∼100% of gram-negative bacteria, but BacT/ Alert FA did not detect gram-negative bacteria at all. In presence of ciprofloxacin, BacT/Alert FA detected 100% of E. coli and K. pneumoniae compared with 33% of those for BACTEC Plus. Overall, TTD of BACTEC Plus was shorter than that of BacT/Alert FA except in detecting gram-negative bacteria with ciprofloxacin (P<0.05). Conclusion: BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F media containing peak therapeutic levels of antimicrobials are more effective and faster detection of bacteria than BacT/ Alert FA media. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2010;13: 151-156)
BACTEC +有氧/F培养基与BACTEC / Alert FA培养基检测抗微生物药物峰值治疗水平血培养瓶细菌的比较
背景:为抗生素治疗患者开发了带有抗菌去除系统的血培养瓶。本研究比较了BACTEC Plus有氧/F瓶(美国Becton Dickinson公司,BACTEC Plus)和BACTEC /Alert FA瓶(法国bioMerieux Vitek公司)有效去除抗菌药物的能力。方法:在BACTEC Plus和bacact /Alert FA瓶中加入5 mL人血,9种抗菌药物和7种类型菌株的峰值治疗浓度。每个抗菌素/菌株组合和不使用抗菌素的生长控制完成了三轮重复试验。比较了两种系统的细菌检测时间(TTD)和回收率。结果:总体而言,BACTEC Plus和bacact /Alert FA分别回收率为76%(128/168)和34%(57/168)。BACTEC Plus检测出除使用氨苄西林和头孢曲松的肺炎链球菌外的所有革兰氏阳性细菌,但BacT/Alert FA检测出0 ~ 50%的革兰氏阳性细菌,除了使用万古霉素的粪肠球菌和使用奥西林的耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌。在头孢吡肟、头孢噻肟、头孢西丁和头孢曲松存在的情况下,BACTEC Plus检测到33 ~ 100%的革兰氏阴性菌,但bacact / Alert FA未检测到革兰氏阴性菌。在环丙沙星存在的情况下,BacT/Alert FA检测出100%的大肠杆菌和肺炎克雷伯菌,而BACTEC Plus的检测率为33%。除环丙沙星检测革兰氏阴性菌外,BACTEC Plus的TTD总体上短于BacT/Alert FA (P<0.05)。结论:含有抗菌药物治疗峰值水平的BACTEC +好氧/F培养基比BACTEC / Alert FA培养基更有效、更快地检测细菌。(中华临床微生物学杂志2010;13:151-156)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信