Comparison of the BacT/Alert FAN aerobic and the Difco ESP 80A aerobic bottles for pediatric blood cultures
Comparison of the BacT/Alert FAN aerobic and the Difco ESP 80A aerobic bottles for pediatric blood cultures
复制标题
BacT/Alert FAN 有氧瓶和 Difco ESP 80A 有氧瓶用于儿科血培养的比较
DOI：
10.1128/jcm.35.5.1166-1171.1997
复制
发表时间：
1997
影响因子：
9.4
通讯作者：
G. Storch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. L. Welby;D. Keller;R. Ferrett;G. Storch
We compared the BacT/Alert system using the aerobic FAN bottle with the ESP system using the 80A aerobic bottle for the detection of pediatric bloodstream pathogens at a children's hospital. From 6,636 blood culture sets complying with the inclusion criteria, 308 pathogens were detected, including 177 that were detected by both systems, 69 that were detected by BacT/Alert FAN only, and 62 that were detected by ESP 80A only (P = 0.6; not significant). BacT/Alert FAN detected more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (47 versus 34; P = 0.02), while ESP 80A detected more episodes of streptococcal and enterococcal infection. BacT/Alert FAN detected more pathogens from patients receiving antibiotic therapy (107 versus 93; P = 0.04). Of 248 separate episodes of bacteremia or fungemia, 146 were detected by both systems, 56 were detected by ESP 80A only, and 46 were detected by BacT/Alert FAN only (P = 0.37; not significant). The median times to detection were 13.6 h for ESP 80A and 15.7 h for BacT/Alert FAN (P < 0.001). Both systems were considered easy to operate and were free from significant mechanical difficulties. False-positive or false-negative signals were rare or nonexistent with both systems. We conclude that both systems rapidly detect a broad range of pediatric bloodstream pathogens. BacT/Alert FAN provides better detection of Staphylococcus aureus, especially from patients receiving antibiotics. ESP 80A provides better detection of streptococci and enterococci.
