School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
J Med Microbiol. 2020 Jun;69(6):806-811. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.001209. Epub 2020 Jun 3.
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.
血流感染(BSI)的发病率不断上升,对健康构成严重威胁。大多数患者在微生物培养能够确认诊断之前要等待长达 48 小时。BSI 患者血液中循环细菌数量少,这意味着我们需要开发新方法并优化现有方法,以促进从血液中有效回收细菌。这将使阳性血培养的检测能够在更具临床意义的时间范围内进行。有许多细菌回收方法,通常包括离心、过滤、血清分离或裂解处理等技术的组合。在这里,我们评估了直接从血培养中进行的九种不同的细菌回收方法。我们旨在确定一种细菌回收方法,以便从血培养中直接以具有成本效益且高效的方式回收常见的 BSI 病原体。模拟 ATCC 25922 血培养被用作模型系统来评估九种不同的细菌回收方法。每种方法都根据回收产量、成本、手工时间、污染风险和易用性进行评估。得分最高的回收方法进一步使用七种最常发生的血流病原体模拟血培养进行评估。回收产量是基于回收前后的 c.f.u. 计数计算的。独立 -检验用于确定基于 c.f.u. ml 的对数回收,评估的回收方法是否有显著差异。所有九种方法都成功地从模拟血培养中回收了 ATCC 25922,尽管细菌产量有显著差异。MALDI-TOF 完整细胞方法的回收率最差,平均损失 2.94±0.37 log c.f.u. ml。相比之下,Bio-Rad 开发的一种方法实现了最大的细菌产量,平均细菌损失为 0.27±0.013 log c.f.u. ml。总体而言,低速血清分离法在时间、成本和回收效率方面表现出最高的效率,成功地从七种最常见的 BSI 病原体中回收,平均细菌损失为 0.717±0.18 log c.f.u. ml。不同方法之间的细菌回收率可能有显著差异,从而对下游分析产生关键影响。低速血清分离法为从血培养中回收常见 BSI 病原体提供了一种简单有效的方法,将进一步研究其在临床实践中快速检测菌血症和药敏试验中的应用。