Courcol R J, Durocher A V, Roussel-Delvallez M, Fruchart A, Martin G R
Bacteriology Laboratory, A. Calmette Hospital, Lille, France.
J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Sep;26(9):1619-22. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.9.1619-1622.1988.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media were more effective than the BACTEC NR-6A and NR-7A media in recovering organisms from the blood of patients undergoing antimicrobial therapy. A total of 986 sets of four blood culture bottles were compared, giving 141, 174, 93, and 104 isolates with BACTEC NR-6A, NR-16A, NR-7A, and NR-17A, respectively. BACTEC NR-6A and NR-7A media recovered 234 isolates, whereas BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media recovered 278 isolates. The recovery rate of bacteria when aerobic resin media were used was better than that with conventional aerobic media (P less than 0.001). The mean detection times were 51.5 and 69.7 h with NR-16A and NR-6A, respectively (P less than 0.01), whereas they were 68.2 and 71.3 h with NR-17A and NR-7A, respectively (P greater than 0.05). The small number of anaerobes recovered precluded a statistical comparison of relative recovery for that group of organisms.
本研究的目的是确定BACTEC NR - 16A和NR - 17A培养基在从接受抗菌治疗患者的血液中分离微生物方面是否比BACTEC NR - 6A和NR - 7A培养基更有效。总共比较了986套四个血培养瓶,使用BACTEC NR - 6A、NR - 16A、NR - 7A和NR - 17A培养基分别分离出141、174、93和104株菌株。BACTEC NR - 6A和NR - 7A培养基共分离出234株菌株,而BACTEC NR - 16A和NR - 17A培养基共分离出278株菌株。使用需氧树脂培养基时细菌的回收率优于传统需氧培养基(P小于0.001)。使用NR - 16A和NR - 6A时的平均检测时间分别为51.5小时和69.7小时(P小于0.01),而使用NR - 17A和NR - 7A时分别为68.2小时和71.3小时(P大于0.05)。分离出的厌氧菌数量较少,无法对该组微生物的相对回收率进行统计学比较。