4.0 Article

Comparative evaluation of BACTEC FX, BacT/ALERT 3D, and BacT/ALERT VIRTUO-automated blood culture systems using simulated blood cultures

期刊

ACTA CLINICA BELGICA
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 71-78

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17843286.2020.1797343

关键词

Blood culture system; time to detection; recovery rate; trough antibiotic concentration

资金

  1. Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission Foundation [201803010094]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The VIRTUO system demonstrated faster growth detection for most organisms compared to FX and 3D systems. Bottles containing antibiotic-binding agent showed better bacterial recovery rate when antibiotics were present, especially in BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F bottles.
Background To evaluate the performance of BACTEC FX, BacT/ALERT 3D, and VIRTUO systems using simulated blood culture (BC). Methods Two experimental designs based on 'with' or 'without' added trough antibiotic concentrations in bottles were implemented. Results For the experiment A, A shorter time to detection (TTD) was observed for most of organisms (17/22) in VIRTUO system. VIRTUO system was also faster than 3D and FX systems no matter in aerobic and anaerobic bottles. The anaerobic bottles had faster detection than aerobic bottles in 3D system (13.68 h vs 15.36 h,P< 0.001) and VIRTUO system (10.30 h vs 12.46 h, P = 0.001) but not in FX system (P= 0.38). When antibiotics were present, the bacterial recovery rate (RR) of FX, 3D and VIRTUO systems were 64.10% (50/78), 58.97% (46/78) and 43.59% (34/78), respectively (P= 0.027). the bacterial RR of various bottles were as follows: BPA vs. FA vs. SA [84.44%(38/45) vs. 55.56%(25/45) vs. 42.22(19/45),P< 0.001]; BFN vs. FN vs. SN [36.36%(12/33) vs. 63.64%(21/33) vs.45.45%(15/33),P= 0.078]. Conclusions The VIRTUO system allowed faster growth detection for most of organisms compared with FX and 3D systems. When antibiotics were present, the bottles containing antibiotic-binding agent showed better bacterial RR, especially in BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F bottles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据