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
. 1983 Sep;18(3):554-7.
doi: 10.1128/jcm.18.3.554-557.1983.

Evaluation of a lysis-centrifugation and biphasic bottle blood culture system during routine use

Evaluation of a lysis-centrifugation and biphasic bottle blood culture system during routine use

M T Kelly et al. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Sep.

Abstract

An in-use evaluation of a commercially available lysis-centrifugation blood culture system (Isolator; Du Pont Co., Wilmington, Del.) is presented. The Isolator was compared with biphasic bottles containing Trypticase soy broth and agar for the detection of organisms in 3,129 paired blood samples. Of 272 potential pathogens recovered, 78% were detected by the Isolator system, and 69% were detected by the biphasic bottle. A total of 31% of these organisms were detected only by the Isolator, and 22% were detected only by the biphasic bottle. The Isolator demonstrated enhanced detection of facultative gram-negative bacilli, anaerobic bacteria, and polymicrobial cultures. The biphasic bottle was more effective for the recovery of facultative gram-positive cocci, especially Streptococcus pneumoniae. The two systems were equally effective for the recovery of yeasts. Contamination rates were 3% for the Isolator and 3.2% for the biphasic bottle. The results indicate that the Isolator system performs well in routine clinical use, but it should be complemented by another method to obtain optimal detection of bacteremia. The biphasic bottle provides an acceptable complementary system both in terms of utility and performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1978 Jan;7(1):52-4 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1979 Mar;9(3):391-6 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1979 Nov;10(5):673-6 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Aug;16(2):403-5 - PubMed
    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1983 Jan-Feb;5(1):35-53 - PubMed

MeSH terms