Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
editorial
. 2000 Feb;38(2):943. doi: 10.1128/jcm.38.2.943-943.2000

PCR for Detection of Bacteremia

Pramod M Shah 1
PMCID: PMC86261  PMID: 10722325

This letter refers to the article by Heininger et al. (1). In the introduction section, the authors mention that bacteremia is diagnosed in only approximately 4 to 12% of all blood cultures inoculated in patients with sepsis.

Generally, the denominator for calculating the rate of positivity in blood cultures is the number of blood cultures processed by the laboratory. However, one should keep in mind that blood cultures are inoculated not only to confirm the clinical diagnosis of sepsis but also to rule out sepsis in other clinical situations, such as patients with fever and clinical diagnosis of lymphoma, patients with malaria returning from a tropical country where typhoid fever needs to be ruled out, etc. If the denominator for calculating the rate of positive blood cultures is the number of patients with the clinical diagnosis of sepsis, then up to 63% of blood cultures yield a pathogen of clinical significance, as we have shown in a prospective study (2).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Heininger A, Binder M, Schmidt S, Unertl K, Botzenhart K, Döring G. PCR and blood culture for detection of Escherichia colibacteremia in rats. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:2479–2482. doi: 10.1128/jcm.37.8.2479-2482.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shah P M, Schaumann R F. Positivitätsrate von Blutkulturen bei Sepsis. J Lab Med. 1997;21:120–121. [Google Scholar]
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Feb;38(2):943.

AUTHOR'S REPLY

Alexandra Heininger 1

My colleagues and I thank Dr. Pramod Shah for his thoughtful comments on our publication (1-1). We agree that the calculation of positive blood culture (BC) rates strongly depends on the denominator. The rate of 4 to 12% positive mentioned for BCs in our publication (1-1) refers to BCs in general, without consideration of the suspected diagnosis of the patients, whereas the rate of 63% positive BC results observed by Dr. Shah refers to samples collected from patients with clinically diagnosed sepsis. Thus, Dr. Shah's data are not necessarily in conflict with ours. However, Dr. Shah's intention most probably was to underline the suitability of BC, with which we fully agree.

Nevertheless, when BCs are taken from patients treated with antimicrobial chemotherapy, positive results are rarely obtained. As we have convincingly described (1-1), PCR overcomes this problem. Yet, this new method has not been evaluated in the clinical context, and the true rate of bacteremia in patients treated with antibiotics is still unknown. Also, the PCR technique may create false-negative results. For instance, it is not clear whether human serum DNase degrades bacterial DNA once it has been released after lysis of microorganisms by serum complement or antibiotics in the bloodstream. Little information is available on DNase concentrations and activities on eucaryotic or procaryotic DNA in human blood. Likewise, we do not know the percentage of DNA released from bacteria during antibiotic therapy in humans.

False-negative results obtained by BC or PCR might tempt clinicians to underestimate the spread of a localized infection or to adhere to an inadequate antimicrobial treatment regimen. Therefore, as a prerequisite for the assessment of the true rate of bacteremia in antibiotic-treated patients, further studies need to address the potential limitations of the PCR method.

REFERENCE

  • 1-1.Heininger A, Binder M, Schmidt S, Unertl K, Botzenhart K, Döring G. PCR and blood culture for detection of Escherichia colibacteremia in rats. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:2479–2482. doi: 10.1128/jcm.37.8.2479-2482.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES