1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 69, Issue 6

Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture Open Access

Abstract

Bloodstream infections (BSI) are growing in incidence and present a serious health threat. Most patients wait up to 48 h before microbiological cultures can confirm a diagnosis. Low numbers of circulating bacteria in patients with BSI mean we need to develop new methods and optimize current methods to facilitate efficient recovery of bacteria from the bloodstream. This will allow detection of positive blood cultures in a more clinically useful timeframe. Many bacterial blood recovery methods are available and usually include a combination of techniques such as centrifugation, filtration, serum separation or lysis treatment. Here, we evaluate nine different bacteria recovery methods performed directly from blood culture.

We sought to identify a bacterial recovery method that would allow for a cost-effective and efficient recovery of common BSI pathogens directly from blood culture.

Simulated ATCC 25922 blood culture was used as a model system to evaluate nine different bacteria recovery methods. Each method was assessed on recovery yield, cost, hands-on time, risk of contamination and ease of use. The highest scoring recovery method was further evaluated using simulated blood cultures spiked with seven of the most frequently occurring bloodstream pathogens. The recovery yield was calculated based on c.f.u. count before and after each recovery method. Independent -tests were performed to determine if the recovery methods evaluated were significantly different based on c.f.u. ml log recovery.

All nine methods evaluated successfully recovered ATCC 25922 from simulated blood cultures although the bacterial yield differed significantly. The MALDI-TOF intact cell method offered the poorest recovery with a mean loss of 2.94±0.37 log c.f.u. ml. In contrast, a method developed by Bio-Rad achieved the greatest bacterial yield with a mean bacteria loss of 0.27±0.013 log c.f.u. ml. Overall, a low-speed serum-separation method was demonstrated to be the most efficient method in terms of time, cost and recovery efficiency and successfully recovered seven of the most frequent BSI pathogens with a mean bacteria loss of 0.717±0.18 log c.f.u. ml.

The efficiency of bacterial recovery can vary significantly between different methods and thereby can have a critical impact on downstream analysis. The low-speed serum-separation method offered a simple and effective means of recovering common BSI pathogens from blood culture and will be further investigated for use in the rapid detection of bacteraemia and susceptibility testing in clinical practice.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): blood culture and bacterial recovery and bloodstream infection
© 2020 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
2020-06-03
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/69/6/806.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001209&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1589–1596 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Leal HF, Azevedo J, Silva GEO, Amorim AML, de Roma LRC et al. Bloodstream infections caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria: epidemiological, clinical and microbiological features. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19:609 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Hsu D, Melzer M. Strategy to reduce E. coli bacteraemia based on cohort data from a London teaching hospital. Postgrad Med J 2018; 94:212–215 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Vihta K-D, Stoesser N, Llewelyn MJ, Quan TP, Davies T et al. Trends over time in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and antibiotic susceptibilities in Oxfordshire, UK, 1998-2016: a study of electronic health records. Lancet Infect Dis 2018; 18:1138–1149 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Diekema DJ, Hsueh P-R, Mendes RE, Pfaller MA, Rolston KV et al. The microbiology of bloodstream infection: 20-year trends from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019; 63:e00355–19 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Wain J, Diep TS, Ho VA, Walsh AM, Nguyen TT et al. Quantitation of bacteria in blood of typhoid fever patients and relationship between counts and clinical features, transmissibility, and antibiotic resistance. J Clin Microbiol 1998; 36:1683–1687 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Henry NK, McLimans CA, Wright AJ, Thompson RL, Wilson WR et al. Microbiological and clinical evaluation of the isolator lysis-centrifugation blood culture tube. J Clin Microbiol 1983; 17:864–869 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Kreger BE, Craven DE, McCabe WR et al. Gram-Negative bacteremia. Am J Med 1980; 68:344–355 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Werner AS, Cobbs CG, Kaye D, Hook EW. Studies on the bacteremia of bacterial endocarditis. JAMA 1967; 202:199 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Altun O, Almuhayawi M, Lüthje P, Taha R, Ullberg M et al. Controlled evaluation of the new BacT/Alert Virtuo blood culture system for detection and time to detection of bacteria and yeasts. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54:1148–1151 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernhardt M, Pennell DR, Almer LS, Schell RF. Detection of bacteria in blood by centrifugation and filtration. J Clin Microbiol 1991; 29:422–425 PMID [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Castaneda MR. A practical method for routine blood cultures in brucellosis. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1947; 64:114–115 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Barnini S, Brucculeri V, Morici P, Ghelardi E, Florio W et al. A new rapid method for direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria from positive blood cultures. BMC Microbiol 2016; 16:p. 1757 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fothergill A, Kasinathan V, Hyman J, Walsh J, Drake T et al. Rapid identification of bacteria and yeasts from positive-blood-culture bottles by using a lysis-filtration method and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrum analysis with the SARAMIS database. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51:805–809 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Wei Hou H, Gan HY, Bhagat AAS, Li LD, Lim CT et al. A microfluidics approach towards high-throughput pathogen removal from blood using margination. Biomicrofluidics 2012; 6:024115–2411513 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Wu Z, Willing B, Bjerketorp J, Jansson JK, Hjort K et al. Soft inertial microfluidics for high throughput separation of bacteria from human blood cells. Lab Chip 2009; 9:1193–1199 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee J-J, Jeong KJ, Hashimoto M, Kwon AH, Rwei A et al. Synthetic ligand-coated magnetic nanoparticles for microfluidic bacterial separation from blood. Nano Lett 2014; 14:1–5 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Pitt WG, Alizadeh M, Husseini GA, McClellan DS, Buchanan CM et al. Rapid separation of bacteria from blood-review and outlook. Biotechnol Prog 2016; 32:823–839 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Public Health England UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations: Investigation of Blood Cultures (for organisms other than Mycobacterium species). 2019. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/829758/B_37i8.2.pdf .
  20. Auckenthaler R, Ilstrup DM, Washington JA. Comparison of recovery of organisms from blood cultures diluted 10% (volume/volume) and 20% (volume/volume). J Clin Microbiol 1982; 15:860–864 PMID [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Weinstein MP. Current blood culture methods and systems: clinical concepts, technology, and interpretation of results. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23:40–46 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Miles AA, Misra SS, Irwin JO. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. Epidemiol Infect 1938; 38:732–749 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferreira L, Sánchez-Juanes F, Muñoz-Bellido JL, González-Buitrago JM. Rapid method for direct identification of bacteria in urine and blood culture samples by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry: intact cell vs. extraction method. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17:1007–1012 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lupetti A, Barnini S, Castagna B, Nibbering PH, Campa M et al. Rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-positive cocci in blood cultures by direct inoculation into the BD Phoenix system. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16:986–991 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Bio-Rad β LACTATM Test Preparation of the bacterial pellet from a positive blood culture (REF: 68250). Available from: http://www.bio-rad.com/webroot/web/pdf/inserts/CDG/et/68250_881150_EE.pdf. [Accessed 5th September 2018]..
  26. Schneiderhan W, Grundt A, Wörner S, Findeisen P, Neumaier M et al. Work flow analysis of Around-the-clock processing of blood culture samples and integrated MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry analysis for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections. Clin Chem 2013; 59:111656 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang AM, Newton D, Kunapuli A, Gandhi TN, Washer LL et al. Impact of rapid organism identification via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight combined with antimicrobial stewardship team intervention in adult patients with bacteremia and candidemia. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:1237–1245 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Boardman AK, Campbell J, Wirz H, Sharon A, Sauer-Budge AF et al. Rapid microbial sample preparation from blood using a novel concentration device. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0116837 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Simpson AJ, Howe PA, Wuthiekanun V, White NJ et al. A comparison of lysis centrifugation, pour plate, and conventional blood culture methods in the diagnosis of septicaemic melioidosis. J Clin Pathol 1999; 52:616–619 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Herlich MB, Schell RF, Francisco M, Le Frock JL. Rapid detection of simulated bacteremia by centrifugation and filtration. J Clin Microbiol 1982; 16:99–102 PMID [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lamberg RE, Schell RF, LeFrock JL. Detection and quantitation of simulated anaerobic bacteremia by centrifugation and filtration. J Clin Microbiol 1983; 17:856–859 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Zierdt CH, Kagan RL, MacLowry JD. Development of a lysis-filtration blood culture technique. J Clin Microbiol 1977; 5:46–50[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Sullivan NM, Sutter VL, Finegold SM. Practical aerobic membrane filtration blood culture technique: development of procedure. J Clin Microbiol 1975; 1:30–36 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Buetti N, Atkinson A, Marschall J, Kronenberg A et al. Swiss Centre for Antibiotic Resistance (ANRESIS) Incidence of bloodstream infections: a nationwide surveillance of acute care hospitals in Switzerland 2008-2014. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e013665 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Yagupsky P, Nolte FS. Quantitative aspects of septicemia. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990; 3:269–279 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Petti CA, Bhally HS, Weinstein MP, Joho K, Wakefield T et al. Utility of extended blood culture incubation for isolation of Haemophilus, Actinobacillus, Cardiobacterium, Eikenella, and Kingella organisms: a retrospective multicenter evaluation. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:257–259 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. McCabe WL. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2005
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Roome AP, Tozer RA. Effect of dilution on the growth of bacteria from blood cultures. J Clin Pathol 1968; 21:719–721 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Paiva J-A, Laupland KB. Real -time PCR for early microbiological diagnosis: is it time?. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43:1714–1716 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Barcina I, Arana I, Santorum P, Iriberri J, Egea L. Direct viable count of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria using ciprofloxacin as inhibitor of cellular division. J Microbiol Methods 1995; 22:139–150 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang M-C, Lin W-H, Yan J-J, Fang H-Y, Kuo T-H et al. Early identification of microorganisms in blood culture prior to the detection of a positive signal in the BACTEC FX system using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2015; 48:419–424 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Taylor F et al. Diagnostic Techniques in Equine Medicine E-Book London: Saunders Elsevier; 2010
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Dean. L. Blood Groups and Red Cell Antigens. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US); 2005. Chapter 1: Blood and the cells it contains. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2263/ .
  44. Public Health England Laboratory Surveillance of polymicrobial bacteraemia and fungaemia in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: 2017. 2018. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691268/hpr1018_polymcrbls.pdf [Accessed 16th April 2020]..
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
Loading
Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture
J. Med. Microbiol. 69, 806 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error