A comparative study of conventional method versus bactec method in bacteriological profile of septicemia.
Author(s): Bilal Ahmad Mir, Siddesh Basavaraj Sirwar, Amrutha Swati Indupalli*
Sepsis is common and also more dangerous in elderly, immune-compromised, and critically ill patients. It occurs in 1–2% of all hospitalizations and accounts for as much as 25% of intensive-care unit (ICU) bed utilization. It is a major cause of death in intensive-care units worldwide, with mortality rates that range from 20% for sepsis to 40% for severe sepsis to >60% for septic shock. A total of 160 blood samples were collected from patients with suspected septicemia from several wards of Medwin Hospital. Alternate samples were Cultured by Bactec 9050 (Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Sparks, Md) and conventional methods. And 12 random samples were cultured by both Bactec 9050 and conventional methods. It was observed that out of 160 cases 43 (26.9%) of septicemia positive cases were detected by one or the other method. out of 80 samples cultured by Bactec method 29 (36.2%) were Bactec positive cases. And out of 80 samples cultured by Conventional method 14 (17.5%) were Conventional positive cases. In a statistical comparison of Bactec and Conventional method, Sensitivity for Bactec method was seen as 90% whereas for conventional method it was 60%. Bactec method has the highest specificity i.e. 100% whereas Conventional method has 75%. The Bactec performed better than the conventional in overall detection, time to detection, number of false-negatives, and missed episodes of simulated septicemia.
Share this article
International Journal of Bioassays is a member of the Publishers International Linking Association, Inc. (PILA), CROSSREF and CROSSMARK (USA). Digital Object Identifier (DOI) will be assigned to all its published content.