2. Evaluation of factors affecting the efficiency of isolating anaerobic bacteria at viet duc friendship hospital (01/2015 - 01/2021)
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate several factors affecting the efficiency of isolating anaerobic bacteria from 323 samples of pus and fluids. The results showed that the positive rate with anaerobic bacteria isolated from pus samples (50,0%) was significantly higher than that from fluid samples (25.1%). The positive proportion with anaerobic bacteria in specimens with a volume of ≥ 0.5ml (38.36%) was significantly higher than in specimens with a volume of < 0.5ml (11,11%). The positive rate with anaerobic bacteria in the specimens with transport time ≤ 30 (40.0%) was significantly higher than samples with transport time > 30 and < 100 minutes (27.71%). The positive rate with anaerobic bacteria was equal among four methods of aerobics environment. Hence, the type of specimens, the volume of specimens, and the transport time of specimens were the important factors affecting the isolation rate of anaerobic bacteria from pus and fluids.
Article Details
Keywords
Culture, isolate, anaerobic bacteria
References
2. Akhi MT, Ghotaslou R, Beheshtirouy S, et al. Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern of Aerobic and Anaerobic Bacteria Isolated From Surgical Site Infection of Hospitalized Patients. Jundishapur J Microbiol. Jul 2015; 8(7): e20309.
3. Cobo F, Rodriguez-Granger J, Perez-Zapata I, Sampedro A, Aliaga L, Navarro-Mari JM. Antimicrobial susceptibility and clinical findings of significant anaerobic bacteria in southern Spain. Anaerobe. Oct 2019; 59: 49-53.
4. Cobo F, Borrego J, Gomez E, et al. Clinical Findings and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Anaerobic Bacteria Isolated in Bloodstream Infections. Antibiotics (Basel). Jun 19 2020; 9(6).
5. Lopez-Pintor JM, Garcia-Fernandez S, Ponce-Alonso M, et al. Etiology and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of anaerobic bacteria isolated from clinical samples in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain. Anaerobe. Dec 2021; 72: 102446.
6. Gajdacs M, Spengler G, Urban E. Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Anaerobic Bacteria: Rubik’s Cube of Clinical Microbiology? Antibiotics (Basel). Nov 7 2017; 6(4).
7. Martin WJ. Practical method for isolation of anerobic bacteria in the clinical laboratory. Appl Microbiol. Dec 1971; 22(6): 1168-71.
8. Rosenblatt JE, Fallon A, Finegold SM. Comparison of methods for isolation of anaerobic bacteria from clinical specimens. Appl Microbiol. Jan 1973; 25(1): 77-85.
9. Leber AL. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. American Society for Microbiology; 2016; (4): 679-686.
10. Lê Thị Thiều Hoa. Nghiên cứu vi khuẩn kị khí trong một số nhiễm khuẩn ngoại khoa tại Bệnh viện Việt Đức (Đề tài cấp Bộ). 2003.
11. Shenoy PA, Vishwanath S, Gawda A, et al. Anaerobic Bacteria in Clinical Specimens - Frequent, But a Neglected Lot: A Five Year Experience at a Tertiary Care Hospital. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. Jul 2017; 11(7): Dc44-dc48.
12. Tjampakasari CR, DSP, Ika Ningsih, Ariyani Kiranasari. Distribution of anaerobic bacteria and their sensitivity pattern to several antibiotics at the clinical microbiology laboratory of school of medicine, universitas Indonesia, Jakarta in 2019-2020.
13. McMinn MT, Crawford JJ. Recovery of anaerobic microorganisms from clinical specimens in prereduced media versus recovery by routine clinical laboratory methods. Applied microbiology. 1970; 19(2): 207-213.