Journal article
Multicenter evaluation of blood culture contamination and blood cultures practices in US acute care hospitals: time for standardization
Journal of clinical microbiology, Vol.63(8), e00530-25
08/13/2025
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00530-25
PMCID: PMC12345234
PMID: 40643261
Abstract
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommends a blood culture contamination (BCC) threshold of <3%, with ≤1% considered optimal. However, there is not a standardized definition of BCC, and the effect of multiple definitions on BCC rates or what definitions laboratories use remain unknown. We surveyed 52 hospitals and analyzed 362,078 blood cultures (BCx) collected 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2021 from 62 intensive care units (ICUs) and 231 wards from 48 of these hospitals. We calculated and compared BCC rates using the College of American Pathologists (CAP) or CLSI criteria (both utilize a limited number of skin commensals to define BCC) and the comprehensive National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) commensal list. We characterized factors associated with BCC and related outcomes (central-line associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI] and vancomycin use). BCC, BCx positivity, and single BCx rates were monitored by 100%, 39%, and 21% of hospitals, respectively. Hospitals used CAP (65%), CLSI (17%), and NHSN (17%) criteria to define BCC. Mean BCC rate by CAP (CAP-BCC) was 1.38% for ICUs and 0.96% for wards. BCC rates remained similar by CLSI criteria but increased when using NHSN list. Sharing BCC data outside of the laboratory, measuring additional BCx quality indicators, and limiting central catheter-drawn BCx were associated with lower BCC rates. BCC was associated with higher CLABSI rates in ICUs. This study demonstrated variability in laboratory practices and opportunities to optimize BCx stewardship.IMPORTANCEBlood culture contamination (BCC) is associated with patient harm and unnecessary use of healthcare resources. BCC thresholds have been established; however, multiple BCC definitions exist. There is limited data on how BCC rates differ depending on the BCC definition used, what definitions laboratories most commonly use, or their approach to other blood cultures (BCx) quality indicators such as single rates or BCx positivity. A cross-sectional multicenter survey and analysis of BCx data from intensive care unit and wards revealed that most laboratories did not track single BCx or BCx positivity rates and that there was variability in how BCC was defined. Additionally, BCC rates were influenced by the definition used. BCC was associated with increased central-line associated bloodstream infection rates.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Multicenter evaluation of blood culture contamination and blood cultures practices in US acute care hospitals: time for standardization
- Creators
- Valeria Fabre - Johns Hopkins UniversityYea-Jen Hsu - Johns Hopkins UniversityKaren C. Carroll - Johns Hopkins MedicineAaron M. Milstone - Johns Hopkins UniversityAlejandra B. Salinas - Johns Hopkins MedicineLilian M. Abbo - Jackson Health SystemChris Bower - Emory UniversityJennifer Berry - Sibley Memorial HospitalSarah Boyd - Saint Luke's Health SystemKathleen O. Degnan - University of PennsylvaniaPragya Dhaubhadel - Geisinger Health SystemDaniel J. Diekema - University of IowaMarci Dress - Christiana Care Health SystemBaevin Feeser - Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterMark Fisher - University of UtahCynthia Flynn - Christiana Care Health SystemBradley A. Ford - University of IowaErin B. Gettler - Duke UniversityLaurel J. Glasser - University of PennsylvaniaJessica Howard-Anderson - Emory UniversityJ. Kristie Johnson - University of Maryland, BaltimoreSara M. KarabaJustin J. Kim - Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical CenterAlyssa Kubischta - Suburban HospitalBenjamin M. Landrum - Howard County General HospitalMarvin Martinez - Brown UniversityAmy J Mathers - University of VirginiaLeonard Mermel - Brown UniversityRebekah W. Moehring - Duke UniversityJohn C. O'Horo - Mayo ClinicDana E. Pepe - Hadassah Medical CenterS. Sonia Qasba - ,Barry Rittmann - Virginia Commonwealth UniversityEvan D. Robinson - University of VirginiaGuillermo Rodríguez-Nava - Stanford UniversityRossana Rosa - Jackson Health SystemJonathan H. Ryder - University of Nebraska Medical CenterJorge L. Salinas - Stanford UniversityAditya Shah - Mayo ClinicGregory M. Schrank - University of Maryland, BaltimoreMark Shelly - Geisinger Health SystemEmily S. Spivak - University of UtahKathleen O. Stewart - Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical CenterThomas R. Talbot - Vanderbilt UniversityTrevor C. Van Schooneveld - University of Maryland, BaltimoreAnastasia Wasylyshyn - Michigan Department of Health and Human ServicesAvinash Gadala - Johns Hopkins HospitalZunaira Virk - Johns Hopkins MedicineSara E. Cosgrove - Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Contributors
- Erin McElvania (Editor)
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Publication Details
- Journal of clinical microbiology, Vol.63(8), e00530-25
- DOI
- 10.1128/jcm.00530-25
- PMID
- 40643261
- PMCID
- PMC12345234
- NLM abbreviation
- J Clin Microbiol
- ISSN
- 0095-1137
- eISSN
- 1098-660X
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology; WASHINGTON
- Number of pages
- 13
- Grant note
- #1 U54 CK000617-01 / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000030)
- Language
- English
- Electronic publication date
- 07/11/2025
- Date published
- 08/13/2025
- Academic Unit
- Infectious Diseases; Pathology; Internal Medicine
- Record Identifier
- 9984845649402771
Metrics
2 Record Views