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
Comparative Study
. 1994 Jun;32(6):1547-9.
doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.6.1547-1549.1994.

Controlled clinical evaluation of Isolator and ESP aerobic blood culture systems for detection of bloodstream infections

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Controlled clinical evaluation of Isolator and ESP aerobic blood culture systems for detection of bloodstream infections

B A Kirkley et al. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Jun.

Abstract

A controlled clinical evaluation comparing the Isolator system (Wampole Laboratories, Cranbury, N.J.) and the ESP 80A blood culture bottle in the automated ESP system (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) was performed with 10,535 blood culture sets from patients with suspected septicemia. Of 1,150 positive cultures, 844 positive cultures from 285 patients with 394 septic episodes fulfilled the study criteria for minimum blood sample requirements in each system and clinical significance of isolates. The Isolator system detected statistically significantly more positive cultures of Staphylococcus aureus (P < 0.001), Enterococcus spp. (P = 0.007), Escherichia coli (P = 0.001), Alcaligenes xylosoxidans (P = 0.02), Xanthomonas maltophilia (P = 0.01), Candida albicans (P < 0.001), and Candida glabrata (P = 0.05). The Isolator system detected significantly more septic episodes due to S. aureus (P < 0.001), X. maltophilia (P = 0.02), and C. albicans (P = 0.004) than did the ESP 80A bottle; however, the two systems did not otherwise significantly differ in their abilities to detect septic episodes due to other organisms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1986 Sep-Oct;8(5):792-802 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Mar;32(3):811-8 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Aug;31(8):2114-7 - PubMed
    1. Am J Infect Control. 1988 Jun;16(3):128-40 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources