Bench Test for the Detection of Bacterial Contamination in Platelet Concentrates Using Rapid and Cultural Detection Methods with a Standardized Proficiency Panel

5Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The most frequent infectious complication in transfusion therapy in developed countries is related to the bacterial contamination of platelet concentrates (PCs). Rapid and cultural screening methods for bacterial detection in platelets are available, but external performance evaluation, especially of rapid methods, has been difficult to realize so far. Here we summarize the results of three individual collaborative trials using an external quality assessment program (EQAP) for the application of current rapid and cultural screening methods. Methods: Three different modules were available for the detection of bacterial contamination: module 1: rapid methods, module 2: culture methods, module 3: bacterial identification methods. The sample set-up included up to six different bacterial strains, 1-2 negative samples and 4-6 positive samples with stabilized bacterial cell counts (approximately 103/104/105 CFU/ml). Time schedule for testing was limited (module 1: 6 h, module 2 and 3: 7 days). Results: Samples of module 1 were analyzed with two different rapid methods (BactiFlow, NAT). The results of the three individual collaborative trials showed that all participants detected the negative samples with both assays correctly. Samples spiked with 104 to 105 CFU/ml of bacteria obtained positive results with both rapid screening methods, whereas samples spiked with only 103 CFU/ml disclosed a lower number of correctly identified positive results by NAT (86.6-93.8% sensitivity) compared to BactiFlow (100% sensitivity). The results for modules 2 and 3 revealed a 100% diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in all three collaborative trials. Conclusion: This proficiency panel facilitates the verification of the analytical sensitivity of rapid and cultural bacterial detection systems under controlled routine conditions. The concept of samples provided in this EQAP has three main advantages: i) samples can be examined by both rapid and culture methods, ii) the provided material is matrix-equivalent, and iii) the sample material is ready-to-use.

References Powered by Scopus

Detection of bacterial contamination in prestorage culture-negative apheresis platelets on day of issue with the Pan Genera Detection test

118Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

High-volume extraction of nucleic acids by magnetic bead technology for ultrasensitive detection of bacteria in blood components

63Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Novel flow cytometry-based screening for bacterial contamination of donor platelet preparations compared with other rapid screening methods

42Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Implications of the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for mitigating septic reactions from platelet transfusions

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Current status of rapid bacterial detection methods for platelet components: A 20-year review by the ISBT Transfusion-Transmitted Infectious Diseases Working Party Subgroup on Bacteria

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Late sampling for automated culture to extend the platelet shelf life to 5 days in Germany

4Citations
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

Vollmer, T., Knabbe, C., Geilenkeuser, W. J., Schmidt, M., & Dreier, J. (2015). Bench Test for the Detection of Bacterial Contamination in Platelet Concentrates Using Rapid and Cultural Detection Methods with a Standardized Proficiency Panel. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy, 42(4), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1159/000437396

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

63%

Researcher 2

25%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4

33%

Medicine and Dentistry 4

33%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

17%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free