Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1988 Nov;26(11):2262–2265. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.11.2262-2265.1988

Rapid detection of positive blood cultures with the BACTEC NR-660 does not require first-day subculturing.

M H Levi 1, P Gialanella 1, M R Motyl 1, J C McKitrick 1
PMCID: PMC266872  PMID: 3069859

Abstract

An analysis of blood culture data was performed to determine whether subculturing within the first 24 h of incubation decreased the time to detection of positive blood cultures when compared with the routine use of the BACTEC NR-660 system (Johnston Laboratories, Inc., Towson, Md.). During a 9-month period (June 1985 to February 1986), 17,913 blood cultures were received in our laboratory, of which 1,463 (8.2%) became positive. Of the positive cultures, 97% were detected with equal or greater rapidity by the NR-660 system than by visual inspection and first-day blind subculturing. There were 37 delayed positive cultures from which only one isolate (0.07%) was not eventually detected by the NR-660 system. Coagulase-negative staphylococcus was the most frequent isolate among the delayed positive cultures, but only 3 of 15 isolates were known to be clinically significant isolates. The longest delay in detection by the NR-660 system was 6 days for one isolate of Cryptococcus neoformans and one isolate of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Although subculturing may decrease the time to detection of a few cultures, the majority of positive blood cultures were detected faster or with equal speed by the NR-660 system. When the data were evaluated, routine use of the NR-660 system was sufficient for the detection of positive blood cultures and was cost-effective.

Full text

PDF

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Caslow M., Ellner P. D., Kiehn T. E. Comparison of the BACTEC system with blind subculture for the detection of bacteremia. Appl Microbiol. 1974 Sep;28(3):435–438. doi: 10.1128/am.28.3.435-438.1974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Courcol R. J., Fruchart A., Roussel-Delvallez M., Martin G. R. Routine evaluation of the nonradiometric BACTEC NR 660 system. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Jul;24(1):26–29. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.1.26-29.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Crist A. E., Jr, Amsterdam D., Neter E. Superiority of hypertonic culture medium for detection of Haemophilus influenzae by the BACTEC procedure. J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Mar;15(3):528–530. doi: 10.1128/jcm.15.3.528-530.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jungkind D., Millan J., Allen S., Dyke J., Hill E. Clinical comparison of a new automated infrared blood culture system with the BACTEC 460 system. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Feb;23(2):262–266. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.2.262-266.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Reimer L. G., Reller L. B. Use of a sodium polyanetholesulfonate disk for the identification of Gardnerella vaginalis. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Feb;21(2):146–149. doi: 10.1128/jcm.21.2.146-149.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Strand C. L. Routine subcultures shown to be unnecessary in radiometric detection of bacteremia using three media. Am J Clin Pathol. 1982 Mar;77(3):328–332. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/77.3.328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Washington J. A., 2nd, Ilstrup D. M. Blood cultures: issues and controversies. Rev Infect Dis. 1986 Sep-Oct;8(5):792–802. doi: 10.1093/clinids/8.5.792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES