A Comparative Study on Conventional and Automated Blood Culture in the Early Detection of Bacterial Pathogens

L, Lekshmi Rajan; Jayalekha, B; Sreekumary, PK; Harikumar, S L

doi:10.14260/jemds/2017/542

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It showed that yield of bacteria by automated method was 100% (29/29) as compared to conventional method which had 89.7% (26/29) yield of bacteria. These findings are similar to a study that showed yield of bacteria by automated and conventional methods were 96.9% and 80% 9 . Our study showed among the isolated bacteria, Klebsiella spp (62.0%) was predominant, followed by Acinetobacter spp (21.0%), Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas spp (6.8%) each and Serratia spp (3.4%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The ideal blood culture system assembles the maximum yield of pathogen as early as possible in order to have maximum influence on patient management 7 . Different comparative studies including ours have reported different percentages of bacterial growth along with yield of bacteria by both methods 8,9 . In case of life threatening conditions like neonatal sepsis, irrational use of antibiotics have swayed the sensitivity pattern of microbes, which are evident in several recent studies thus making the use of unconventional drugs compulsory and lifesaving 10,11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…It correlates with a finding of 57.73% isolated bacteria in a comparative study 8 . Another study stated 34% of isolated bacteria within 48 hours by conventional method 9 . In our study, mean time for isolation of bacteria by conventional and automated methods were 46.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Conventional and Automated Blood Culture Methods for The Diagnosis of Neonatal Septicemia

Chowdhury¹,

Akter²,

Ahmed³

et al. 2021

Bangladesh J Med Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neonatal Septicemia is a serious clinical syndrome and the definitive diagnosis is based on positive blood cultures which are obtained either by conventional or automated method. Early availability of proper isolation and identification of causative bacteria facilitates the timely initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy. Thereby the present study was conducted to identify the bacterial causes of neonatal septicemia in the fastest possible time by comparing conventional and automated blood culture methods.This cross sectional study was done during the period from January 2018 to December 2018 and included clinically suspected cases of neonatal septicemia admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units of Chattogram Medical College Hospital (CMCH) and Chattogram Maa-Shishu O General Hospital (CMSOGH). Out of 178 samples, automated method detected 29 (16.3%) and conventional method detected 26 (14.6%) blood culture positive samples. The yield of bacteria by automated method was 100% and by conventional method was 89.7%. Number of bacteria isolated only by automated method were 3 (10.2%). Mean time for isolation of bacteria by automated method was 26.38 hours and by conventional method was 46.34 hours. Automated method detected 47.05% of isolated bacteria in first 24 hours but none of them were detected by conventional method within first 24 hours. Among the isolated bacteria, Klebsiella spp was most common (62.0%). Most of the isolates were resistant to Ampicillin, Cefotaxime and Ceftazidime. Analyzing the findings of the study, there was no significant difference in the rate of isolation in each time interval (p=0.157) of two methods but there was significant difference in the mean time of isolation of bacteria between two methods (p=0.000004). Bangladesh J Med Microbiol 2021; 15 (2): 12-18

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Conventional and Automated Blood Culture Methods for The Diagnosis of Neonatal Septicemia

Chowdhury¹,

Akter²,

Ahmed³

et al. 2021

Bangladesh J Med Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Technological developments resulted in the accessibility of diverse systems, each appealing to be greater in different facets. 7 Drawbacks of the conventional method require a better diagnostic tool with higher yield and speed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of manual conventional blood cultures versus automated blood culture system in cases of septicemia

Ansari¹,

Saher

Afzal³

2021

IJMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Blood cultures are a proven gold standard method for the identification of causative agents of bloodstream infections. Identification of causative organism along with antibiotic susceptibility plays a pivotal role in proposing suitable antibiotic therapy. Automated blood culture systems show improved monitoring of blood cultures by reducing the time and by ensuring more accurate results when compared to the conventional blood culture system. To isolate the organism from given blood samples of a suspected case of septicemia and to compare the results of conventional and automated blood culture systems and to study the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of the pathogens isolated. A prospective study of 6 months period was conducted among 100 subjects attending the Department of Microbiology in a tertiary care hospital. Subjects with symptoms and signs of septicemia were included. 25ml of venous blood was drawn aseptically from the venipuncture site, of which 5ml of blood was inoculated into 50ml of Brain Heart Infusion bottle in conventional blood culture system and 10ml each into aerobic and anaerobic BACTEC PLUS bottle in Automated blood culture system BACTEC FX40. Overall, 48% and 60% of the samples revealed positive growth by the conventional and automated blood culture system BACTEC FX40, respectively. Gram Positive Cocci were 52.08% and Gram Negative Bacilli were 47.91% isolated by conventional blood culture system, whereas automated blood culture system BACTEC FX40 isolated 45% and 55%, respectively. Isolates were detected within 24-48hrs and 12-24 hrs by conventional and automated blood culture systems, respectively. The anti-microbial susceptibility pattern of the pathogens isolated was also recorded by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method of antimicrobial susceptiblity testing. Automated blood culture systems are a trustworthy substitute to conventional blood culture systems. The automated blood culture systems being more sensitive and rapid in detecting septicemia in subjects acts as an appropriate means for the initial identification and detection of blood pathogens and improved provision of antimicrobial therapeutic options for septic Patients especially in Critical Care and Intensive Care Units where positive culture reporting is crucial.

show abstract

A Comparative Study on Conventional and Automated Blood Culture in the Early Detection of Bacterial Pathogens

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Comparison of Conventional and Automated Blood Culture Methods for The Diagnosis of Neonatal Septicemia

Comparison of Conventional and Automated Blood Culture Methods for The Diagnosis of Neonatal Septicemia

Comparative study of manual conventional blood cultures versus automated blood culture system in cases of septicemia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About