Kan Kültür Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesinde Etkili Olan Faktörler

Öz

Dolaşım sistemi infeksiyonlarının tanısı için alınan kan kültürlerinin değerlendirilmesi bazen problem oluşturmaktadır. Kan kültür sonucunun klinik yönden değerlendirilmesi alınan kan kültür sayısı, kültürlerin alınma zamanı, alınan kan miktarı, alım teknikleri, deri antisepsisi, kanı alan kişinin bu konuda eğitimli olup olmaması gibi hemen her aşamada pek çok faktörden etkilenmektedir. Bu yazıda kan kültür sonucunu etkileyen faktörler hakkında ayrıntılı bilgiler verilmiştir. Anahtar kelimeler: Kan kültürü, Kan alma prosedürü

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kan kültürü, Kan alma prosedürü

Factors For Interpreting Blood Culture Results

Abstract

Interpretation of blood cultures is a common problem in the diagnosis of blood stream infections. Clinical interpretation of blood culture results is affected with the number of cultures obtained, timing of the cultures, volume of the blood cultured, the collection procedure, skin antisepsis and phlebotomists drawing blood cultures. This review has provide more detail information about the factors that have affected blood culture results. Key words: Blood culture, Collection procedure

Keywords

• Blood culture, Collection procedure

Kaynakça

1. Tabriz MS, Riederer K, Baran Jr J et al. Repeating blood cultures during hospital stay: practice patern at a teaching hospital and a proposal for guidelines. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004; 10: 624-7.
2. Mylotte JM, Tayara A. Blood culture: clinical aspects and controversies. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2000; 19: 157-63.
3. Trautner BW, Clarridge JE, Darouiche RO. Skin antisepsis kits containing alcohol and chlorhexidine gluconate or tincture of iodine are associated with low rates of blood culture contamination. İnfect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23: 397-401.
4. Kim SD, McDonald LC, Jarvis WR et al. Determining the significance of coagulase- negative staphylococci isolated from blood cultures at a community hospital: A role for species and strain identification. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21:213-7.
5. Reimer LG, Wilson ML, Weinstein MP. Update on detection of bacteremia and fungemia. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997; 10: 444-65.
6. Sümerkan B. Nozokomiyal sepsis: etyoloji ve mikrobiyolojik tanısı. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Dergisi 1998; 2:182-7.
7. Richter SS. Strategies for minimizing the impact of blood culture contaminants. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter 2002;24:49-53.
8. Correa L, Pittet D. Problems and solutions in hospital acquired bacteraemia. J Hosp Infect 2000; 46:89-95.

9. Weinstein MP. Blood culture contamination: persisting problems and partial progress. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 2275-8.
10. Isenberg HD.Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook; 2nd ed. Washington, DC. 2004.
11. Munford RS. Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. In:Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, ed(s). Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone 2005:906-26.
12. Norberg A, Christopher NC, Ramundo ML et al. Contamination rates of blood cultures obtained by dedicated phlebotomy vz intravenous catheter. JAMA 2003; 289:726-9.
13. McBryde ES, Tilse M, McCormack J. Comparison of contamination rates of catheter drawn and peripheral blood cultures. J Hosp Infect 2005; 60: 118-21.
14. Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, Schreckenberger PC, Jr Winn WC. Color Atlas of TextBook of Diagnostic Microbiology; 5th ed. Philadelphia.1997.
15. Li J, Plorde JJ, Carlson LG. Effects of volume and periodicity on blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 1994; 2:2829-31.
16. Fovler VG, Scheld WM, Bayer AS. Endocarditis and intravascular infections. In:Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, ed(s). Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone 2005:975-1022.