Comparison of Lysis Filtration and an Automated Blood Culture System (BACTEC) for Detection, Quantification, and Identification of Odontogenic Bacteremia in Children

Abstract

Lysis filtration (LyF) was compared with BACTEC PAEDS PLUS in estimating the prevalence of, and sensitivity for, detection of odontogenic bacteremia. Both real bacteremia and simulated bacteremia (seeded blood or saline samples) were assessed to determine the validity of LyF in estimating bacteremia. The simulated bacteremia was also used to assess the reliability of LyF to estimate intensity of bacteremia in CFU per milliliter of blood. Reference organisms were used to assess the abilities of LyF and BACTEC to isolate known oral streptococci. There was no difference in the number of CFU per milliliter of seeded saline, seeded blood, and drop cultures of the organisms plated directly onto agar. Blood cell volume had a negligible effect on the yield of organisms for simulated bacteremia. When LyF and BACTEC were compared, the time to detection of bacteremia was always significantly shorter for BACTEC. For aerobic cultures, these times were 43.7 and 9.6 h, respectively (P < 0.01). For anaerobic cultures, these times were 45.1 and 9.9 h, respectively (P < 0.01). These differences occurred as well for bacteremia following the extraction of a single tooth, with LyF and BACTEC aerobic cultures taking 78 and 30.5 h, respectively (P < 0.0001). For anaerobic cultures, the times were 90.8 and 45 h, respectively (P < 0.0004). A preextraction bacteremia was detected on 2.1% of occasions with BACTEC compared to 31% of occasions with LyF (P < 0.05) The use of LyF was an effective and reliable means of estimating the intensity of pre-and postextraction bacteremia. The values were 3.6 and 5.9 CFU/ml, respectively (P < 0.4729), and the difference was not statistically significant. In summary, BACTEC is quicker than LyF, but less sensitive. LyF provides additional important information in estimating the intensity of bacteremia.

Effects of Irrigation With an Antiseptic and Oral Administration of Azithromycin on Bacteremia Caused by Scaling and Root Planing

“…This system detects organisms by the fluorometric detection of CO 2 produced by growing organisms. It is known that this system can detect odontogenic bacteremia in 30 to 45 hours 36 . Additionally, we have ascertained that culture bottles inoculated with P. gingivalis of several concentrations (10, 100, 1000, and 10000 CFU/ml) signaled positive within 6 days in the preliminary experiment.…”

Duration, prevalence and intensity of bacteraemia after dental extractions in children

“…7 15 The results in this study are similar to those of a detailed study comparing the validity of BACTEC with that of lysis filtration in the detection of dental bacteraemia. 15 For these reasons, the data from the lysis filtration were used to assess the duration of bacteraemia. This was clearly highest during and up to 7.5 min and then diminished rapidly as most of the bacteraemia had been removed by the immune defence systems within 15 min (table 2).…”

“…A further 6 ml was processed by lysis filtration. 15 The remaining 1 ml was frozen and stored for future polymerase chain reaction analysis.…”

“…For the lysis filtration samples the blood was processed by a well-established method, 8 which has been shown to be reliable for detecting oral streptococci. 15 Positive cultures from both the broth culture and the lysis filtration were isolated and identified routinely by both comparative 16S rRNA and sodA gene sequencing. Negative controls were processed with every 10th run of broth culture and each run of lysis filtration to identify contamination.…”

Chewing fails to induce oral bacteraemia in patients with periodontal disease

“…In previous studies in our laboratory, we have shown that the Bactec 9240 culture and continuous monitoring system is effective in detecting oral bacteraemia, including Gram negatives and fastidious oral organisms, caused by periodontal probing (Daly et al 1997, 2001). The same Bactec system has also been shown to be effective in detecting these types of micro‐organisms in oral bacteraemias caused by a range of procedures (Lucas et al 2002, Tomas et al 2004, Kinane et al 2005). Studies on Bactec continuous monitoring systems have shown that 5 days are sufficient in routine circumstances to recover 97–99% of isolates (Wilson et al 1993, Doern et al 1997, Cockerill et al 2004).…”