Smart D, Baggoley C, Head J, Noble D, Wetherall B, Gordon D L
Department of Emergency Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia.
Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Jul;22(7):1164-8. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)80983-7.
We tested the hypotheses that blood culture positivity and contamination rates were not increased by not changing needles between venipuncture and inoculation of blood culture bottles or by taking blood for culture by freshly inserted IV cannulae.
A prospective study of blood cultures collected by venipuncture or IV cannulae taken from an emergency department population. Venipuncture samples were randomized into needle change (standard method) or no needle change before inoculation into blood culture bottles.
Nine hundred forty patients requiring blood cultures after assessment in the ED.
A standard disinfection procedure using 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol was used. Blood was collected by venipuncture and inoculated with or without needle change. Blood collected by IV cannula was inoculated with a fresh needle applied to the collection syringe.
There was no statistically significant difference in contamination rates for blood collected by venipuncture with no needle change (6.4%) compared with needle change (4.2%, P > .30). No significant difference in contamination rates was noted for blood taken by freshly inserted IV cannulae (4.3%) compared with venipuncture with needle change after sampling (4.2%, P > .90). Some problems with randomization resulted in unequal numbers in the needle-change (286) versus no-needle-change (141) subgroups, and this may have introduced bias. A higher rate of pathogen growth was observed in blood taken by IV cannula (11.4%) compared with the standard method (6.3%) (P < .025). A significantly greater rate of Gram-negative sepsis was noted in the IV cannula group (6.6%) compared with direct venipuncture with needle change (1.1%) and no needle change (4.2%, P < .01).
The results of this study do not support the practice of changing needles before inoculating blood samples into blood culture bottles. Collection of blood for culture through freshly inserted IV cannulae is associated with a low contamination rate and is an acceptable alternative to direct venipuncture. Sources of bias in this study suggest that further research is needed to determine the optimal technique for collecting blood cultures.
我们检验了以下假设,即在静脉穿刺与接种血培养瓶之间不更换针头,或通过刚插入的静脉留置套管采集血培养样本,不会增加血培养阳性率和污染率。
一项对急诊科人群通过静脉穿刺或静脉留置套管采集血培养样本的前瞻性研究。静脉穿刺样本在接种血培养瓶前被随机分为更换针头组(标准方法)和不更换针头组。
940例在急诊科评估后需要进行血培养的患者。
采用0.5%氯己定乙醇溶液进行标准消毒程序。通过静脉穿刺采集血液,接种时更换或不更换针头。通过静脉留置套管采集的血液用新针头接种到采集注射器上。
静脉穿刺不更换针头采集的血液污染率为6.4%,与更换针头组(4.2%,P>.30)相比,差异无统计学意义。刚插入的静脉留置套管采集的血液污染率为4.3%,与采样后更换针头的静脉穿刺组(4.2%,P>.90)相比,差异无统计学意义。随机分组存在一些问题,导致更换针头组(286例)与不更换针头组(141例)亚组数量不均衡,这可能引入了偏倚。与标准方法(6.3%)相比,静脉留置套管采集的血液中病原体生长率更高(11.4%)(P<.025)。与更换针头的直接静脉穿刺组(1.1%)和不更换针头组(4.2%)相比,静脉留置套管组革兰阴性菌败血症发生率显著更高(6.6%)(P<.01)。
本研究结果不支持在将血样接种到血培养瓶之前更换针头的做法。通过刚插入的静脉留置套管采集血培养样本污染率低,是直接静脉穿刺的可接受替代方法。本研究中的偏倚来源表明,需要进一步研究以确定采集血培养样本的最佳技术。