Enhancing blood culture volume with ultrathin-wall cannula devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Suboptimal blood volume collection negatively affects pathogen recovery and time to pathogen detection in clinical blood culture samples. This study evaluated the performance of the ultrathin-wall cannula device of the BD Vacutainer UltraTouch Push Button Blood Collection Set (UltraTouch; BD Life Sciences, Franklin Lakes, NJ) in increasing the blood volume collected compared to regular cannulas. In this retrospective study, the volume of blood collected in negative BD BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F Culture Vials prior to and following blind conversion to UltraTouch was measured from blood background metabolic activity signal acquired during the initial incubation period in the BD BACTEC FX instrument using a custom software application (patent pending). Differences in average fill volume between pre- and post-conversion were evaluated overall and by month. A separate logistic regression was also performed to model the relationship between monthly average blood volume increase (mL) and sample positivity rate. Prevalence rates for identified organisms were also assessed. The blood fill volume of 13,356 pre-conversion and 119,971 post-conversion bottles was compared. The average post-conversion fill volume was significantly higher than that of pre-conversion (7.56 mL [95% CI, 7.54–7.59] vs. 5.68 mL [95% CI, 5.62–5.74], respectively). This 1.88 mL increase in collected blood volume increased sample positivity from 7.0% to 7.7% ( P = 0.002; odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04–1.19). This study demonstrated that using an ultrathin-wall cannula blood collection device can significantly increase blood culture volume and sample positivity, supporting improved identification of patients suffering from bloodstream infections. IMPORTANCE Substandard blood fill volume practices in clinical settings negatively affect pathogen recovery which, in turn, may impact patients’ care. Whereas professional education regarding the importance of adhering to clinical guidelines has been helpful in partly remediating the issue, the role of blood collection set technologies in optimizing blood culture volume has not been studied as thoroughly. Our study assessed the performance of the BD Vacutainer UltraTouch Push Button Blood Collection Set, which is designed with an ultrathin-wall cannula, to improve blood culture volume.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".