Reviews

Extended incubation in blood cultures: necessity or nuance?

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Received: 10 July 2025
Accepted: 13 August 2025
Published: 12 December 2025
296
Views
99
Downloads

Authors

Bloodstream Infections (BSIs) are severe conditions caused by microbial pathogens that can lead to life-threatening complications if not diagnosed and treated promptly. Blood culture remains the primary method for detecting these infections, allowing clinicians to identify causative organisms and select appropriate antimicrobial therapies. While traditional culture techniques are widely used, their long processing time has driven the adoption of automated systems such as BacT/ALERT and BACTEC, which offer faster and more accurate results. In addition, extending incubation periods has proven valuable in recovering slow-growing bacteria and fungi, particularly those that may be missed within standard time frames. This strategy supports antimicrobial stewardship by reducing reliance on empirical treatments and ensuring targeted antibiotic use. However, there are certain challenges in prolonging the incubation time, including an increased risk of contamination, higher resource demands, and workflow adjustments in laboratories. A critical balance and customisation as per the requirements of the clinicians and the resources of the laboratory are required.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

1. Alahmadi YM, Mcelnay JC, Kearney MP, et al. Tackling the problem of blood culture contamination in the intensive care unit using an educational intervention. Epidemiol Infect 2015;143:1964-71.
2. Berbari EF, Kanj SS, Kowalski TJ, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of native vertebral osteomyelitis in adults. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2015;61:e26-46.
3. Chela HK, Vasudevan A, Rojas-Moreno C, Naqvi SH. Approach to positive blood cultures in the hospitalized patient: a review. Mo Med 2019;116:313-7.
4. Cockerill FR III, Wilson JW, Vetter EA, et al. Optimal testing parameters for blood cultures. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:1724-30.
5. Forward KR. An evaluation of extended incubation time with blind subculture of blood cultures in patients with suspected endocarditis. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2006;17:186-8.
6. Fuller DD, Davis TE, Denys GA, York MK. Evaluation of BACTEC MYCO/F lytic medium for recovery of mycobacteria, fungi, and bacteria from blood. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:2933-6.
7. Girón-Ortega JA, Fernández-Guerrero R, Arjona MM de O, et al. Antibiotic use and outcome in patients with negative blood cultures, a new target population for antimicrobial stewardship interventions: a prospective multicentre cohort (NO-BACT). Journal of Infection 2024;88:95-102.
8. Gonzalez MD, Chao T, Pettengill MA. Modern blood culture. Clin Lab Med 2020;40:379-92.
9. Hagiya H, Ohnishi K, Maki M, et al. Clinical characteristics of Ochrobactrum anthropi bacteremia. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2013;51:1330-3.
10. Hall KK, Lyman JA. Updated review of blood culture contamination. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006;19:788-802.
11. Liesman RM, Pritt BS, Maleszewski JJ, Patel R. Laboratory diagnosis of infective endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:2599-608.
12. Martinez RM, Wolk DM. Bloodstream Infections. In: Hayden RT, Wolk DM, Carroll KC, Tang YW (eds), Diagnostic Microbiology of the Immunocompromised Host. ASM Press; Washington, USA; 2016. p. 653-89.
13. McHugh J, Saleh OA. Updates in culture-negative endocarditis. Pathogens 2023;12:1027.
14. Nath S, Choudhury B, Borbora S. A comparative study of conventional and automated blood culture system in adult patients. Int J Res Rev 2023;10:653-7.
15. Qin Y, Liao Y, Zhou J, et al. Comparative evaluation of BacT/ALERT VIRTUO and BACTEC FX400 blood culture systems for the detection of bloodstream infections. Microbiol Spectr 13:e01850-24.
16. Shapiro K, Cross SJ, Morton TH, et al. Healthcare-associated infections caused by Mycolicibacterium neoaurum. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2023;29:1516-23.
17. Simner PJ, Doerr KA, Steinmetz LK, Wengenack NL. Mycobacterium and aerobic actinomycete culture: are two medium types and extended incubation times necessary? J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:1089-93.
18. Somily AM, Babay HAH, Torchyan AA, et al. Time-to-detection of bacteria and yeast with the BACTEC FX versus BacT/Alert Virtuo blood culture systems. Ann Saudi Med 2018;38:194-9.
19. Tenderenda A, Łysakowska M, Dargiewicz R, Gawron-Skarbek A. Blood culture contamination: a single general hospital experience of 2-year retrospective study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:3009.
20. Thorpe TC, Wilson ML, Turner JE, et al. BacT/Alert: an automated colorimetric microbial detection system. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:1608-12.
21. Ulrich PS, Bastian IN, Chen DJ. Clinical significance of BD Bactec FX blood culture incubation beyond 96 hours (4 days). J Clin Microbiol 2022;60:e00549-22.

How to Cite



Extended incubation in blood cultures: necessity or nuance?. (2025). Microbiologia Medica, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/mm.2025.14134

Similar Articles

1-10 of 479

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.