Detection of bacterial growth in blood components using oxygen consumption as a surrogate marker in a tertiary oncology setup.

Microbiological contamination of blood and blood products is a well-recognised transfusion risk. This study was performed in the blood bank of our oncology centre, with an objective to detect bacterial contamination in our blood products using oxygen consumption as a surrogate marker [Pall Enhanced Bacterial Detection System (eBDS)]. Results revealed that the percentages of failed units were 1.16% for random donor platelets (RDP), 0.81% for single donor platelets (SDP) and 2.94% for packed red blood cells (PRBCs), of which one RDP and one SDP grew coagulase-negative staphylococcus, while one PRBC culture grew Gram-positive bacilli.

Comparison of Methods for Detecting Bacterial Contamination in Platelet Concentrates / 대한수혈학회지

BACKGROUND: Bacterial contamination of platelets represents the highest infectious risk for a transfusion. In this study, we evaluated 2 culture-based systems that have been approved by the US FDA for bacterial screening. METHODS: Platelet concentrates were inoculated with 5 bacterial species to give a final concentration of 10(0), 10(1) and 10(2) CFU/mL. Samples for culture were taken immediately after inoculation (0 hr sample) and after 24 hrs (24 hr sample). For the BacT/ALERT 3D system, a 10 mL sample was inoculated into an aerobic culture bottle and incubated for 7 days. For the Pall eBDS system, 3 mL samples were taken from the 0 hr and 24 hr samples, respectively. The samples were incubated for 24 hrs and 30 hrs. RESULTS: Both systems detected all inoculated units both in the 0 hr and 24 hr samples, except for units inoculated with K. pneumoniae. Eleven units out of 30 units inoculated with K. pneumoniae were detected by the BacT/ALERT 3D system in the 24 hr samples. The Pall eBDS system detected 8 of 30 units in the 24 hr samples. CONCLUSION: Implementation of either system will decrease the risk of transfusing bacterially contaminated platelets. However, testing for bacterial contamination will not completely prevent septic transfusion reactions; pathogen inactivation that is now available should also be considered as an alternative method to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination.