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

29Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Microbiological and clinical aspects of infection associated with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia

773Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Update on detection of bacteremia and fungemia

389Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Optimal testing parameters for blood cultures

302Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kirkley, B. A., Easley, K. A., & Washington, J. A. (1994). Controlled clinical evaluation of isolator and ESP aerobic blood culture systems for detection of bloodstream infections. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 32(6), 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.32.6.1547-1549.1994

Readers over time

‘13‘17‘18‘19‘20‘2200.511.52

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Researcher 2

50%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

25%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

25%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

25%

Arts and Humanities 1

25%

Engineering 1

25%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0