DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00085-26 ISSN: 0095-1137

Comparison of blood culture contamination rates with standard practice versus two blood diversion devices at a single institution

Casey Vieni, Michele Legried, Jill Mainella, Kelly Bute, Linda Backus, Priya Sampathkumar, Audrey N. Schuetz, Robin Patel, Brad S. Karon

ABSTRACT

Blood culture contamination can lead to false-positive blood culture results, potentially contributing to increased costs and unneeded antibiotic utilization. Initial specimen diversion devices (ISDD) have been proposed to reduce blood culture contamination rates. A single-center, observational study conducted at Mayo Clinic Rochester compared blood culture contamination rates using Steripath or Kurin ISDDs versus standard blood culture collection protocols. Over 255 phlebotomists were trained in the use of the ISDDs, with 31,215 blood cultures, 410 of which were contaminated, collected from adults in the emergency department and inpatient wards. Baseline contamination rates were 1.29%–2.53% with standard collection methods. The Steripath ISDD with direct-to-media inoculation of blood culture bottles (Steripath-DTM) reduced blood culture contamination compared to standard practice (0.34% vs. 1.43%, respectively, P < 0.001). Follow-up studies with the alternative Steripath configuration with an integrated syringe (Steripath-syringe), and then the Kurin ISDD with syringe collection (Kurin-syringe), did not meet the primary endpoint of <0.5% contamination (Steripath-syringe: 1.28%; Kurin-syringe: 1.76%). All three ISDD configurations failed to meet our goal of >75% utilization, with an average measured utilization of 26% for the Steripath-DTM, 26.4% for the Steripath ISDD (combined DTM and syringe) in a follow-up study, and 41.5% in the Kurin study. Additionally, a survey of phlebotomists revealed low staff satisfaction with both Steripath ISDD configurations. Staff reported multiple ergonomic barriers limiting the Steripath ISDD’s utility, which precluded implementation of the Steripath-DTM in routine clinical practice.

IMPORTANCE

We conducted a very large, real-world study of two blood diversion devices to determine whether either would meet goals for reduced blood culture contamination and a high rate of utilization by phlebotomists.

More from our Archive