Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2024
Utility of Anaerobic Blood Cultures in Neonatal Sepsis Evaluation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gottschalk Amanda, Coggins Sarah, Dhudasia Miren B, Flannery Dustin D, Healy Tracy, Puopolo Karen M, Gerber Jeffrey, Mukhopadhyay Sagori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clinicians variably obtain anaerobic blood cultures as part of sepsis evaluations in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Our objective was to determine if anaerobic blood culture bottles yielded clinically relevant information by either recovering pathogens exclusively or more rapidly than the concurrently obtained aerobic culture bottle in the NICU.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of blood cultures obtained from infants admitted to the NICU from August 01, 2015 to August 31, 2023. Standard practice was to inoculate 2 mL of blood divided equally between an aerobic and an anaerobic culture bottle. We analyzed positive blood cultures where both aerobic and anaerobic bottles were obtained and compared pathogen recovery and time to positivity between the bottles.
RESULTS: During the study period, 4599 blood cultures were obtained from 3665 infants, and 265 (5.8%) were positive. Of these, 182 cultures were sent as aerobic-anaerobic pairs and recovered pathogenic organisms. Organisms were recovered exclusively from the anaerobic bottle in 32 (17.6%) cultures. Three organisms were obligate anaerobes; the rest were facultative anaerobes including Coagulase-negative staphylococci (40.6%), Escherichia coli (15.6%), and Staphylococcus aureus (15.6%). Cultures with exclusive recovery in the anaerobic bottle were more frequently obtained ≤3 days after birth, compared to other cultures (31.3% vs 15.3%, P = .03). When both bottles recovered the pathogen (n = 113), the anaerobic bottle had a shorter time to positivity in 76 (67.3%) cultures.
CONCLUSIONS: Including anaerobic culture bottles could lead to the identification of pathogens not recovered in the aerobic bottle, as well as earlier identification of pathogens.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of blood cultures obtained from infants admitted to the NICU from August 01, 2015 to August 31, 2023. Standard practice was to inoculate 2 mL of blood divided equally between an aerobic and an anaerobic culture bottle. We analyzed positive blood cultures where both aerobic and anaerobic bottles were obtained and compared pathogen recovery and time to positivity between the bottles.
RESULTS: During the study period, 4599 blood cultures were obtained from 3665 infants, and 265 (5.8%) were positive. Of these, 182 cultures were sent as aerobic-anaerobic pairs and recovered pathogenic organisms. Organisms were recovered exclusively from the anaerobic bottle in 32 (17.6%) cultures. Three organisms were obligate anaerobes; the rest were facultative anaerobes including Coagulase-negative staphylococci (40.6%), Escherichia coli (15.6%), and Staphylococcus aureus (15.6%). Cultures with exclusive recovery in the anaerobic bottle were more frequently obtained ≤3 days after birth, compared to other cultures (31.3% vs 15.3%, P = .03). When both bottles recovered the pathogen (n = 113), the anaerobic bottle had a shorter time to positivity in 76 (67.3%) cultures.
CONCLUSIONS: Including anaerobic culture bottles could lead to the identification of pathogens not recovered in the aerobic bottle, as well as earlier identification of pathogens.