medigraphic.com

2022, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Hematol Mex 2022; 23 (1)

Prevalence of blood culture contamination in the collection of hematopoietic progenitor cells and blood components

Chávez-Estrada YO, Alvarado-Navarro DM, Hernández-Navarro AK, Ake-Uc MB, Salazar-Riojas R, Gómez-Almaguer D, Gutiérrez-Aguirre CH

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 28-35
PDF size: 276.06 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the prevalence of blood culture contamination in the collection and procedures performed for each blood component.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective study including the results of blood cultures performed from 2013 to 2020, including collections of hematopoietic progenitor cells from mobilized peripheral blood and bone marrow; and blood components (platelets, erythrocytes and plasma) obtained by apheresis using cell separators. Each blood culture was performed in triplicate and for each positive bottle a Gram stain was performed and sown in routine microbiological medium to corroborate the positive status detected by the BD BACTEC FX40 equipment.
Results: Of 1917 blood products analyzed, 27 (1.4%) positive microbiological cultures were found. Fourteen species of microorganisms were identified, with a greater predominance of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Micrococcus spp representing 37% and 11% among the other microorganisms identified, respectively. The species of clinical importance were Acinetobacter spp (2/27), Clostridium spp (1/27) and Salmonella spp (1/27).
Conclusions: The prevalence of contamination in blood culture results was lower than the ranges described, considering it the reference standard for contamination more rigorous than other institutions.


REFERENCES

  1. Jacobs MR, Good CE, Fox RM, Roman KP, Lazarus HM.Microbial contamination of hematopoietic progenitorand other regenerative cells used in transplantation andregenerative medicine. Transfusion 2013; 53 (11): 2690-6.doi: 10.1111/trf.12150.

  2. Klein MA, Kadidlo D, McCullough J, McKenna DH, BurnsLJ. Microbial contamination of hematopoietic stem cellproducts: incidence and clinical sequelae. Biol BloodMarrow Transplant 2006; 12 (11): 1142-9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2006.06.011.

  3. Dargère S, Cormier H, Verdon R. Contaminants in bloodcultures: importance, implications, interpretation andprevention. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018; 24 (9): 964-9. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2018.03.030.

  4. Kozlowska-Skrzypczak M, Bembnista E, Kubiak A, MatuszakP, Schneider A, Komarnicki M. Microbial contaminationof peripheral blood and bone marrow hematopoietic cellproducts and environmental contamination in a stem cellbank: a single-center report. Transplant Proc 2014; 46 (8):2873-6. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.09.002.

  5. Majado MJ, García-Hernández A, Morales A, GonzálezC, Martínez-Sánchez V, Menasalvas A, et al. Influence ofharvest bacterial contamination on autologous peripheralblood progenitor cells post-transplant. Bone MarrowTransplant 2007; 39 (2): 121-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1705549.

  6. Poder Ejecutivo SDES. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-253-SSA1-2012, Para la disposición de sangre humana y suscomponentes con fines terapéuticos. Centro Nacional detransfusión Sanguínea. 2012. Disponible en: http://www.cnts.salud.gob.mx/descargas/NOM-253-SSA1-2012.pdf

  7. Dawson S. Blood culture contaminants. J Hosp Infect 2014; 87 (1): 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.02.009.

  8. Alahmadi YM, Aldeyab MA, McElnay JC, Scott MG, DarwishElhajji FW, Magee FA, et al. Clinical and economic impactof contaminated blood cultures within the hospital setting.J Hosp Infect 2011; 77 (3): 233-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.09.033.

  9. Gander RM, Byrd L, DeCrescenzo M, Hirany S, Bowen M,Baughman J. Impact of blood cultures drawn by phlebotomyon contamination rates and health care costs in ahospital emergency department. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47(4): 1021-4. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02162-08.

  10. Namdaroğlu S, Tekgündüz E, Bozdağ SC, Durgun G, Sarıca A,Demiriz IŞ, et al. Microbial contamination of hematopoieticprogenitor cell products. Transfus Apher Sci 2013; 48 (3):403-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705731.

  11. Hirji Z, Saragosa R, Dedier H, Crump M, Franke N, BurrowsL, et al. Contamination of bone marrow products with anactinomycete resembling Microbacterium species andreinfusion into autologous stem cell and bone marrowtransplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36 (10): 115-21.https://doi.org/10.1086/374051.

  12. Larrea L, de la Rubia J, Soler MA, Ribas P, Fernández JM,Picón I, et al. Quality control of bacterial contamination inautologous peripheral blood stem cells for transplantation.Haematologica 2004; 89 (10): 1232-7.

  13. Rogers KL, Fey PD, Rupp ME. Coagulase-negative staphylococcalinfections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2009; 23 (1):73-98. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2008.10.001.

  14. Researchgate.net. [citado el 25 de marzo de 2022].Disponible en: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317647914_Clostridium_tertium_Un_patogeno_subestimado#fullTextFileContent

  15. Chiu C-H, Su L-H, Chu C. Salmonella enterica serotypeCholeraesuis: epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical disease,and treatment. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004; 17 (2): 311-22. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.311-322.2004.

  16. Public Health England. Examining food, water and environmentalsamples: healthcare settings. GOV.UK. 2013 [citadoel 25 de marzo de 2022].




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com