Version 1
: Received: 1 November 2024 / Approved: 1 November 2024 / Online: 4 November 2024 (08:44:35 CET)
How to cite:
Ahn, K.; Lee, T.; Hwang, S.; Seo, D. M.; Uh, Y. Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen. Preprints2024, 2024110121. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202411.0121.v1
Ahn, K.; Lee, T.; Hwang, S.; Seo, D. M.; Uh, Y. Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen. Preprints 2024, 2024110121. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202411.0121.v1
Ahn, K.; Lee, T.; Hwang, S.; Seo, D. M.; Uh, Y. Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen. Preprints2024, 2024110121. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202411.0121.v1
APA Style
Ahn, K., Lee, T., Hwang, S., Seo, D. M., & Uh, Y. (2024). Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202411.0121.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Ahn, K., Dong Min Seo and Young Uh. 2024 "Comparative Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems Using Simulated Septic Specimen" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202411.0121.v1
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Continuous Monitoring Blood Culture Systems (CMBCS) are revolutionary automated instruments that facilitate the rapid identification of pathogens in blood samples from patients with sepsis. However, with only a few CMBCS being widely used as references, user dependency on these limited options has grown. In response, a new CMBCS was developed and compared with existing systems to evaluate microbial growth. Methods: HubCentra84 was compared to BacT/Alert® 3D and BACTEC™ FX. Staphylococcus aureus (SAU), Streptococcus pneumoniae (SPN), Escherichia coli (ECO), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAE), Bacteroides fragilis (BFR), and Candida albicans (CAL) were selected as representative clinically infectious microorganisms. Colonies from pure cultures were diluted with normal saline to create simulated sepsis specimens (SSS). The SSS was injected into dedicated culture bottles for each instrument. Thirty paired tests were performed for each strain. Results: Colony-forming units of the added SSS were consistent according to bacteria, and all strains demonstrated robust growth in CMBCS. The growth alarm times were uniformly observed according to the instruments used. CMBCS detected the growth of the clinically significant bacteria SAU, SPN, ECO, and PAE approximately 2 h faster than the other two systems. However, it was approximately 200 min slower for CAL and 3,000 min for BFR. Conclusions: The novel CMBCS demonstrates advantages in detecting the growth of common clinical bacteria. Although slow growth was detected for certain microorganisms, it successfully captured the growth of all tested microorganisms.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
