Suppr超能文献

[三种自动血培养系统的评估。Bio Argod、Bact T/Alert、bactec NR-860]

[Evaluation of three automated blood culture systems. Bio Argod, Bact T/Alert, bactec NR-860].

作者信息

Aubert G, Vautrin A C, Michel V P, Fresard A, Dorche G

机构信息

Service de Bactériologie, Hôpital Bellevue, CHRU, Saint-Etienne, France.

出版信息

Pathol Biol (Paris). 1993 Apr;41(4):434-40.

PMID:8233648
Abstract

In 1991 and 1992, three automated blood culturing systems were successively assessed ("Diagnostics Pasteur" Bio Argos: 1,120 Vials, "Organon Teknika" BacT/Alert: 1,400 vials and "Becton Dickinson" bactec NR-860: 2,146 standard vials 6 and 7 and 2,360 resin vials 26 and 27), and compared with the conventional system (C) (Roche aerobic BHI-S Liquoîd, and Diagnostics Pasteur anaerobic prereduced Shaedler). Duplicate blood cultures were collected in various hospital services. They were processed over a 7-day period by the automated instruments and were incubated for 10 days using conventional techniques. The percentage of positivity (clinically significant results) obtained with the automated instruments was similar to that obtained with conventional techniques. Bio Argos: 3.4 p. cent vs 3.8 p. cent with C, BacT/Alert: 3.9 p. cent vs 3.5 p. cent, Bactec standard 6 and 7 vials: 5.6 p. cent vs 6.4 p. cent, and resin 26 and 27: 4.2 p. cent vs 3.1 p. cent. A better sensitivity was found with Bactec resin 26 and 27 vials when compared to C for Staphylococcus aureus (22 p. cent of S. aureus strains were isolated only with resin vials 26 and 27). False positives were as follow: 0.36 p. cent for BacT/Alert, 2.1 p. cent for Bio Argos and 3.5 p. cent for Bactec. The fastest detection rate was observed with the instrument which shakes the vials continuously (BacT/Alert): 73.6 p. cent of positive vials were detected on the day the vials were received at the laboratory. Ninety-four percent of the Bactec resin 26 and 27 positive vials, 90.6 p. cent of the BacT/Alert positive vials, 84 p. cent of the Bactec 6 and 7 positive vials and 73.7 p. cent of the Bio Argos positive vials were detected within twenty-four hours.

摘要

1991年和1992年,相继对三种自动血液培养系统进行了评估(“巴斯德诊断公司”的Bio Argos:1120个瓶,“奥加农泰克尼克公司”的BacT/Alert:1400个瓶,以及“贝克顿·迪金森公司”的bactec NR - 860:2146个6号和7号标准瓶以及2360个26号和27号树脂瓶),并与传统系统(C)(罗氏需氧BHI - S Liquoîd以及巴斯德诊断公司厌氧预还原沙氏培养基)进行比较。在不同医院科室采集了双份血液培养样本。这些样本由自动仪器处理7天,并使用传统技术培养10天。自动仪器获得的阳性率(具有临床意义的结果)与传统技术获得的相似。Bio Argos:3.4% 对比C为3.8%,BacT/Alert:3.9% 对比3.5%,Bactec 6号和7号标准瓶:5.6% 对比6.4%,以及树脂瓶26号和27号:4.2% 对比3.1%。与传统系统相比,Bactec 26号和27号树脂瓶对金黄色葡萄球菌的敏感性更高(仅用26号和27号树脂瓶分离出了22%的金黄色葡萄球菌菌株)。假阳性情况如下:BacT/Alert为0.36%,Bio Argos为2.1%,Bactec为3.5%。在持续摇动培养瓶的仪器(BacT/Alert)上观察到最快的检测率:73.6%的阳性瓶在送到实验室当天被检测到。94%的Bactec 26号和27号树脂瓶阳性样本、90.6%的BacT/Alert阳性样本、84%的Bactec 6号和7号阳性样本以及73.7%的Bio Argos阳性样本在24小时内被检测到。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验