Display options
Share it on

Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 19;4(1):ofw236. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofw236. eCollection 2017.

Do Positive Anaerobic Culture Results Affect Physicians' Clinical Management Decisions?.

Open forum infectious diseases

Tanaya Bhowmick, Tilly A Varughese, Schweta Arakali, Susan E Boruchoff

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
  2. Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

PMID: 28480235 PMCID: PMC5414098 DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofw236

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aerobic and anaerobic cultures from body fluids, abscesses, and wounds are ordered routinely. Prior studies have shown that the results of anaerobic blood cultures do not frequently lead to changes in patient management.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review to determine whether positive results of anaerobic tissue and fluid cultures (excluding blood) affect physicians' treatment approaches. Of 3234 anaerobic cultures, 174 unique patient admissions had positive cultures and met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: Only 18% (n = 31) of patient charts with positive cultures had documented physician acknowledgment (90.3% of acknowledgments by infectious diseases physicians), with 9% (n = 15) leading to change in antibiotic regimens based on results. Seventy percent of all patients received initial empiric antibiotics active against anaerobes. Of the remaining 30% (inappropriate, unknown, or no empiric coverage), 1 regimen change was documented after culture results were known.

CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of management change based on results of anaerobic wound cultures, the value of routine anaerobic culturing is of questionable utility.

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Keywords: anaerobic culture; body fluid culture; physician behavior.

References

  1. J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Aug;31(8):2110-3 - PubMed
  2. Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Jun;26(6):1413-7 - PubMed
  3. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2003 Mar;41(3):293-7 - PubMed
  4. Am J Med Sci. 2008 Jul;336(1):58-63 - PubMed
  5. Am J Med. 2000 Apr 15;108(6):445-7 - PubMed
  6. Clin Infect Dis. 1997 Sep;25 Suppl 2:S127-31 - PubMed
  7. South Med J. 2000 Oct;93(10):986-8 - PubMed
  8. J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Aug;45(8):2711-5 - PubMed

Publication Types