Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7963457

Pseudobacteraemia.

P A Jumaa·B Chattopadhyay
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Pseudobacteraemia occurs when bacteria isolated from blood cultures have originated from outside the patient's bloodstream. Failure to recognize that pseudobacteraemia is taking place and is not true infection may result in patient morbidity, unnecessary therapy and a significant waste of health care resources. Pseudobacteraemia may occur as a result of contamination introduced at any stage of blood culturing, from taking the blood to processing it in the laboratory. In most reported cases, contamination has occurred as a result of faulty aseptic technique, and thus pseudobacteraemia is usually preventable. Episodes of pseudobacteraemia require prompt investigation, but their recognition may be extremely difficult. Here we review pseudobacteraemia and recommend guidelines for its recognition, investigation and prevention.

Explore related subjects

BacteremiaBacteriaBacteriological TechniquesBloodBlood Specimen CollectionBloodlettingEquipment ContaminationHumansIncidenceComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P A Jumaa, B Chattopadhyay. 1994. Pseudobacteraemia.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6701(94)90124-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2017

Route of infection alters virulence of neonatal septicemia Escherichia coli clinical isolates.

Escherichia coli is the leading cause of Gram-negative neonatal septicemia in the United States. Invasion and passage across the neonatal gut after ingestion of maternal E. coli strains produce bacteremia. In this study, we compared the virulence properties of the neonatal E. coli bacteremia clinical isolate SCB34 with the archetypal neonatal E. coli meningitis strain RS218. Whole-genome sequencing data was used to compare the protein coding sequences among these clinical isolates and 33 other representative E. coli strains. Oral inoculation of newborn animals with either strain produced septicemia, whereas intraperitoneal injection caused septicemia only in pups infected with RS218 but not in those injected with SCB34. In addition to being virulent only through the oral route, SCB34 demonstrated significantly greater invasion and transcytosis of polarized intestinal epithelial cells in vitro as compared to RS218. Protein coding sequences comparisons highlighted the presence of known virulence factors that are shared among several of these isolates, and revealed the existence of proteins exclusively encoded in SCB34, many of which remain uncharacterized. Our study demonstrates that oral acquisition is crucial for the virulence properties of the neonatal bacteremia clinical isolate SCB34. This characteristic, along with its enhanced ability to invade and transcytose intestinal epithelium are likely determined by the specific virulence factors that predominate in this strain.

Bacteremia↗
PubMed1996

Treatment of urinary tract infections: selecting an appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic for nosocomial infections.

Clinical and in vitro data indicate that cefepime, a fourth-generation cephalosporin, may be a valuable addition in the treatment of serious infections. In this study, hospitalized patients with complicated and uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), for which parenteral therapy was appropriate, were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio open, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftazidime. A total of 180 patients, including 6 with concurrent bacteremia, were evaluated for their response to cefepime (n = 118) or ceftazidime (n = 62), both of which were administered by intravenous infusion or intramuscular injection in doses of 500 mg every 12 hours. In cases of complicated UTI, cefepime produced a satisfactory clinical response in 83 of 93 (89%) patients and eradicated 83 of 98 (85%) pathogens. A satisfactory clinical response to ceftazidime was experienced by 43 of 50 (86%) patients; and in 39 of 50 (78%) cases pathogens were eradicated. In uncomplicated cases, the clinical response and bacterial eradication rates for cefepime were 23 of 25 (92%) and 22 of 26 (85%), respectively, and for ceftazidime 12 of 12 (100%) and 11 of 12 (92%). Of the 6 patients with concomitant bacteremia, 5 received cefepime and 1, ceftazidime. The infecting organisms, Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis, were eradicated in all cases, although one cefepime-treated patient had an unsatisfactory clinical response. The most common adverse events in both groups were headache, diarrhea, and vomiting; most events were unrelated to therapy. Adverse events forced only a 2% withdrawal of patients in either group. There was local tolerance to both agents, and abnormalities in laboratory values were judged to be clinically insignificant. The results of this study indicate that cefepime can be used safely and successfully to treat both complicated and uncomplicated nosocomial infection of the urinary tract, including cases associated with concurrent bacteremia. Moreover, its safety profile appears comparable to those of other cephalosporins, and local tolerance is similar to that of ceftazidime. No patient in either group required discontinuation of therapy because of local intolerance at the infusion or injection site.

Bacteremia↗