Blood cultures - how many sets? how many bottles?

So until last week I thought all microbiologists agreed that we should aspire to 2 sets of blood cultures. I now discover that some people not only think that 2 sets is overkill, they also are happy with just one bottle! There seems some doubt as to whether this should be the aerobic or anaerobic. Anyway, made me look at our data. I’m sure others have done likewise. Be interesting to combine experiences…

Effect of multiple sets on positivity rate (significant growth only)

So we now get 2 sets of blood cultures sent from the ED in about 20% of cases. And the second set does not add a huge amount of value.

90% of positive episodes in which 2 sets were taken were positive in both sets

Taking a second set of cultures probably increases coliform detection by about 5-10%

There was little effect on isolation of other significant organisms


Bottle type and positivity

Looking at all significant culture results, which bottles were positive?

674 / 1053 significant blood cultures were detected in both bottles

217 / 1053 were detected in anaerobic only

162 / 1053 were detected in aerobic only



Conclusions

Taking more than 1 set may not add much value. But not taking an aerobic and anaerobic bottle - I find it harder to understand that. You will miss important pathogens quite frequently. I would be happy to promote properly filled single sets (aerobic and anaerobic).

Another metric we could maybe get out of the newer blood culture machines is around bottle fill volumes. Perhaps another thing to base quality improvement around? But if anyone has similar data then perhaps we should combine and make a paper out of this. Particularly given the

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Artefactual hyperkalemia - dangerous, expensive. And preventable.

Use of Peezy device to try to improve quality of urine culture

Updated on SoS - Introducing CARIS