Su Leon L, Kamel Hany, Custer Brian, Vanderpool Sandi, Harpool Dennis, Busch Michael, Tomasulo Peter
United Blood Services and Blood Systems, Scottsdale, Arizona; and Blood Systems Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA.
Transfusion. 2008 Sep;48(9):1842-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01763.x. Epub 2008 May 22.
United Blood Services (UBS) began bacterial testing of platelets (PLTs) using one-bottle cultures in September 2003. Collection of 7-day PLTs using two-bottle cultures began in April 2006. This study compares our experience using both systems.
PLTs from 13 UBS regional centers cultured from September 1, 2003, to September 1, 2007, were included in the analysis. Positive-signal bottles from a commercially available microbial detection system (BacT/ALERT, bioMérieux) were sent, with corresponding PLTs if available, for confirmatory testing using plate culture media. AABB definitions were used with modifications.
A total of 51,265 7-day PLT collections and 191,521 5-day PLT collections were tested with bacterial cultures. The overall true-positive (TP) rate for the two-bottle system (1:8544) was comparable to the TP rate with the previous one-bottle system (1:6344). In three of six yield cases, only the anaerobic bottle was positive (two cases of Group D Streptococci, one case of Corynebacterium spp.). The false-positive (FP) and indeterminate (IND) rates in the anaerobic bottle (1:1767 and 1:1830, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the aerobic bottle (1:6408 and 1:17,088, respectively; p < 0.001). One confirmed transfusion-related septic reaction, classified as a late TP after investigation, was reported out of 242,786 tested PLT donations.
The rate of TP cases by the two-bottle system was not increased over the one-bottle system, although anaerobic-bottle-only positive cases were detected. FP and IND rates were increased in the two-bottle system, attributable to the anaerobic bottle. Observation of only one documented transfusion-related septic reaction in 4 years of bacterial screening at UBS is reassuring, although limitations in passive surveillance and higher rates of reactions reported by others indicate the need for continued vigilance.
联合血液服务中心(UBS)于2003年9月开始使用单瓶培养法对血小板(PLT)进行细菌检测。2006年4月开始采用双瓶培养法采集7天期血小板。本研究比较了我们使用这两种系统的经验。
分析纳入了2003年9月1日至2007年9月1日期间从UBS的13个地区中心采集的血小板。将市售微生物检测系统(BacT/ALERT,生物梅里埃公司)检测出的阳性信号瓶(如有相应血小板)送去用平板培养基进行确证检测。使用了经修改的美国血库协会(AABB)的定义。
共对51265份采集期为7天的血小板和191521份采集期为5天的血小板进行了细菌培养检测。双瓶系统的总体真阳性(TP)率(1:8544)与之前单瓶系统的TP率(1:6344)相当。在6例有菌生长的情况中,有3例仅厌氧瓶呈阳性(2例为D组链球菌,1例为棒状杆菌属)。厌氧瓶中的假阳性(FP)率和不确定(IND)率(分别为1:1767和1:1830)显著高于需氧瓶中的相应比率(分别为1:6408和1:17088;p<0.001)。在242786份检测的血小板捐献中,报告了1例经确证的与输血相关的败血症反应,经调查归类为晚期TP。
双瓶系统的TP病例率并未高于单瓶系统,尽管检测到了仅厌氧瓶呈阳性的情况。双瓶系统中的FP率和IND率有所增加,这归因于厌氧瓶。在UBS进行的4年细菌筛查中仅观察到1例有记录的与输血相关的败血症反应,这令人安心,尽管被动监测存在局限性且其他人报告的反应率较高,这表明仍需持续保持警惕。