Abstract
A comparison of the Bactec 9240 (Becton-Dickinson, Sparks, Md.) and Difco ESP (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) instruments for the detection of organism growth from vials whose entry was delayed was evaluated. The instruments' capabilities for organism recovery, time to detection, rates of false-positive results, and numbers of vials in which growth was not detected were made by using seeded blood culture vial pairs and controls with and without delayed entry. Bactec 9240 and Difco ESP aerobic and anaerobic vials were inoculated with human blood and were seeded with organism growth from 18 species, including obligate aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative anaerobic organisms. Each organism was tested in triplicate at 0, 8, 24, 36, and 48 h and was incubated at both room temperature (RT) and 35 degrees C. Two separate phases of the study were performed, each with a different version of Bactec 9240 software. Overall, detection of growth in vials with delayed entry into either the Bactec 9240 or the Difco ESP instrument resulted in an increased total time to detection with incubation at both RT and 35 degrees C compared with the total time to detection for nondelayed vials. However, false-positive results and vials in which growth was not detected were minimal, and delayed entry did not require routine entry or exit subcultures for either system. Analysis of individual time points and incubation temperatures for the detection of all organisms suggested that Difco ESP vials delayed by up to 8 h may be incubated at 35 degrees C (100% detection) and vials delayed for longer than 8 h may remain at RT. Bactec 9240 vials may be incubated at 35 degrees C for up to 24 h with a minimal loss of detection (97.9% detection), and vials delayed for more than 24 h should remain at RT for optimal recovery of organism growth.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (175.8 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Morello J. A., Leitch C., Nitz S., Dyke J. W., Andruszewski M., Maier G., Landau W., Beard M. A. Detection of bacteremia by Difco ESP blood culture system. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Mar;32(3):811–818. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.3.811-818.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nolte F. S., Williams J. M., Jerris R. C., Morello J. A., Leitch C. D., Matushek S., Schwabe L. D., Dorigan F., Kocka F. E. Multicenter clinical evaluation of a continuous monitoring blood culture system using fluorescent-sensor technology (BACTEC 9240). J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Mar;31(3):552–557. doi: 10.1128/jcm.31.3.552-557.1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Welby P. L., Keller D. S., Storch G. A. Comparison of automated Difco ESP blood culture system with biphasic BBL Septi-Chek system for detection of bloodstream infections in pediatric patients. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 May;33(5):1084–1088. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.5.1084-1088.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilson M. L., Weinstein M. P., Reimer L. G., Mirrett S., Reller L. B. Controlled comparison of the BacT/Alert and BACTEC 660/730 nonradiometric blood culture systems. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Feb;30(2):323–329. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.2.323-329.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]