Send to

Choose Destination
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996 Apr;24(4):191-6.

Clinical comparison of the BACTEC 9000 Standard Anaerobic/F and Lytic/F blood culture media.

Author information

Microbiology Laboratory, Rochester General Hospital, New York 14621, USA.


An 8-month prospective, volume controlled, comparison of Standard Anaerobic/F media with a new anaerobic high blood volume lytic medium (Lytic/F) was performed. A total of 2,092 compliant sets, consisting of an aerobic resin bottle or standard aerobic bottle, Standard Anaerobic/F, and Lytic/F bottle were evaluated. A total of 220 (10.6%) positive specimens were detected from the paired anaerobic bottles. These consisted of 194 true positive and 26 false positive bottles. Of 207 total organisms isolated, 122 were considered clinically significant. A comparison of significant organism recovery revealed 79 isolates in both anaerobic bottles, 7 isolates in the standard Anaerobic/F bottle only, and 36 isolates in the Lytic/F bottle only (p < 0.001). The lytic/F bottle detected significantly more Enterobacteriaceae (p < 0.005) and Streptococci (p < 0.05). There were 24 false positive Standard Anaerobic/F bottles and 2 false positive Lytic/F bottles (p < 0.001). When both bottles were positive the Standard Anaerobic/F bottle was positive 12 hours earlier in 1 instance whereas the Lytic/F bottle was positive 12 hours earlier in 8 instances. The mean time for detection in the Standard Anaerobic/F bottle was 18.2 hours versus 13.2 hours for the Lytic/F bottle. The new Lytic/F anaerobic blood culture media was found to be superior to Standard Anaerobic/F media for both total organism recovery and time to organism detection.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center