Morris A J, Wilson M L, Mirrett S, Reller L B
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710.
J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Aug;31(8):2110-3. doi: 10.1128/jcm.31.8.2110-2113.1993.
Because of the declining frequency of anaerobic bacteremia, routinely using half the collected blood volume for anaerobic culture has been challenged. There is no data indicating whether more clinically relevant isolates would be recovered if all or most of the given blood sample were cultured aerobically. In this two-part study, we reviewed cases of anaerobic bacteremia to determine what proportion occurred in situations when anaerobes would be expected and then estimated the yield of different culture approaches by reanalyzing the data from a large prospective clinical blood culture study. The records of 61 patients who had an anaerobic isolate (excluding Propionibacterium species) recovered only from an anaerobic bottle were examined to define clinical settings in which such isolates occur. Fifty-six (92%) patients had clinically important isolates, and the source of infection was obvious at the time of culture in 47 of the 56 (84%). Of 56 patients, 36 (64%) had abdominal signs and symptoms, including 12 with recent abdominal surgery. Of nine patients without an obvious source of infection, six were on high-dose steroids. Relative yields were compared for (i) one aerobic bottle and one anaerobic bottle (5 ml to each) for all blood cultures, (ii) two aerobic bottles (5 ml to each), or (iii) two aerobic bottles plus an extra anaerobic bottle (only for clinically suspected anaerobic sepsis) (5 ml to each). The third approach had the highest yield (475 isolates), because the routine use of two aerobic bottles recovered more Candida spp., members of the family Enterobacteriaceae, and nonfermenters than did the first approach (448 isolates) (P < 0.02), and clinically directed culturing for anaerobes would recover anaerobes missed with the second approach (458 isolates). Our data suggest that the use of two aerobic bottles with selective culturing for anaerobes could increase the number of clinically relevant isolates by at least 6% compared with the current practice of inoculating an aerobic bottle and an anaerobic bottle with equal volumes of blood.
由于厌氧菌血症的发生率不断下降,常规将采集血量的一半用于厌氧培养受到了质疑。目前尚无数据表明,如果对全部或大部分采集的血样进行需氧培养,是否能分离出更多具有临床意义的菌株。在这项分为两部分的研究中,我们回顾了厌氧菌血症病例,以确定在预期存在厌氧菌的情况下其发生率,并通过重新分析一项大型前瞻性临床血培养研究的数据来估计不同培养方法的分离率。我们检查了61例仅从厌氧瓶中分离出厌氧菌(不包括丙酸杆菌属)的患者记录,以确定此类分离株出现的临床情况。56例(92%)患者分离出具有临床重要性的菌株,56例中的47例(84%)在培养时感染源明显。56例患者中,36例(64%)有腹部体征和症状,其中12例近期接受过腹部手术。9例无明显感染源的患者中,6例使用大剂量类固醇。比较了以下三种方法的相对分离率:(i)所有血培养均接种一个需氧瓶和一个厌氧瓶(各5 ml);(ii)接种两个需氧瓶(各5 ml);(iii)接种两个需氧瓶加一个额外的厌氧瓶(仅用于临床怀疑的厌氧败血症)(各5 ml)。第三种方法的分离率最高(475株),因为常规接种两个需氧瓶比第一种方法(448株)分离出更多的念珠菌属、肠杆菌科成员和非发酵菌(P<0.02),而针对厌氧菌的临床定向培养能分离出第二种方法遗漏的厌氧菌(458株)。我们的数据表明,与目前将等量血液接种到一个需氧瓶和一个厌氧瓶的做法相比,使用两个需氧瓶并选择性培养厌氧菌可使具有临床意义的分离株数量至少增加6%。