Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 17;22(1):622.
doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07605-x.

The comparative accuracy of pooled vs. individual blood culture sampling methods for diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection

Phitphiboon Deawtrakulchai  1   2 , Surampa Cheawchanwattana  1 , Wantin Sribenjalux  3   4   5 , Atibordee Meesing  1   6   7
Affiliations

The comparative accuracy of pooled vs. individual blood culture sampling methods for diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection

Phitphiboon Deawtrakulchai et al. BMC Infect Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of treatment in critically ill patients. A differential time to positivity (DTP) of 120 min or more between blood cultures obtained through the catheter vs. peripheral vein is an indicator of CRBSI with high sensitivity and specificity. However, it is no clear whether pooled sampling would be as efficient as individual sampling in order to reduce costs, contamination, or anemia.

Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic study conducted at the medical ICU and semi-ICU of Khon Kaen University's Srinagarind Hospital in Thailand from May 2020 to November 2021. Fifty patients with triple-lumen central venous catheters (CVCs) who were clinically suspected of CRBSI were enrolled. 15 mL of blood was drawn through each catheter lumen, 10 mL of which was inoculated into three blood culture bottles, and the remaining 5 mL was pooled into a single bottle. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and time to positivity of the pooled blood cultures were calculated using individual blood cultures as a reference.

Results: Of the 50 patients enrolled, 14 (28%) were diagnosed with CRBSI, 57.9% of whom were infected with gram-negative bacteria as the causative pathogen (57.9%). Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism. Sensitivity and specificity of the pooled blood sampling method were 69.23% (95% CI [0.44-0.94]) and 97.3% (95% CI [0.92-1.02]), respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.83 (95% CI [0.68-0.99]). A paired T-Test to compare time to positivity of the pooled blood bottle and the first positive culture from the individual bottles indicated statistical significance (14.9 and 12.4 h, respectively). The mean difference was 2.5 [0.9-4.1] h, with a 95% CI and a p-value of 0.006.

Conclusion: Pooled blood sampling results in a lower sensitivity and longer time to positivity for CRBSI diagnosis in patients with triple-lumen CVCs than individual lumen sampling. Trial registration Retrospectively registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry. The study was reviewed and approved on 08/03/2022. TCTR identification number is TCTR20220308002.

Keywords: Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI); Differential time to positivity; Hospital-acquired infections; Individual blood culture; Infection control; Pooled blood culture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
AUC of the diagnostic test using pooled and separate blood sampling from each port of the central line
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siempos II, Kopterides P, Tsangaris I, Dimopoulou I, Armaganidis AE. Impact of catheter-related bloodstream infections on the mortality of critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(7):2283–2289. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a02a67. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gahlot R, Nigam C, Kumar V, Yadav G, Anupurba S. Catheter-related bloodstream infections. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014;4(2):161. doi: 10.4103/2229-5151.134184. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cai Y, Zhu M, Sun W, Cao X, Wu H. Study on the cost attributable to central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection and its influencing factors in a tertiary hospital in China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1027-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martínez-Morel HR, Sánchez-Payá J, Molina-Gómez MJ, García-Shimizu P, García Román V, Villanueva-Ruiz C, et al. Catheter-related bloodstream infection: burden of disease in a tertiary hospital. J Hosp Infect. 2014;87(3):165–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.04.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hammarskjöld F, Berg S, Hanberger H, Taxbro K, Malmvall B-E. Sustained low incidence of central venous catheter-related infections over six years in a Swedish hospital with an active central venous catheter team. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(2):122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.09.023. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources