Residual bacterial detection rates after primary culture as determined by secondary culture and rapid testing in platelet components: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Transfusion. 2020
BACKGROUND Primary culture alone was a bacterial risk control strategy intended to facilitate interdiction of contaminated platelets (PLTs). A September 2019 FDA guidance includes secondary testing options to enhance safety. Our objective was to use meta-analysis to determine residual contamination risk after primary culture using secondary culture and rapid testing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A December 2019 literature search identified articles on PLT bacterial detection rates using primary culture and a secondary testing method. We used meta-analysis to estimate secondary testing detection rates after a negative primary culture. We evaluated collection method, sample volume, sample time, and study date as potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS The search identified 6102 articles; 16 were included for meta-analysis. Of these, 12 used culture and five used rapid testing as a secondary testing method. Meta-analysis was based on a total of 103 968 components tested by secondary culture and 114 697 by rapid testing. The residual detection rate using secondary culture (DR(SC) ) was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.24-0.6) per 1000 components, while residual detection rate using rapid testing (DR(RT) ) was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.01-0.25) per 1000 components. Primary culture detection rate was the only statistically significant source of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION We evaluated bacterial detection rates after primary culture using rapid testing and secondary culture. These results provide a lower and upper bound on real-world residual clinical risk because these methods are designed to detect high-level exposures or any level of exposure, respectively. Rapid testing may miss some harmful exposures and secondary culture may identify some clinically insignificant exposures.
Study details
Study Design : Systematic Review
Language : eng
Credits : Bibliographic data from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine