Back

Quantifying Blood Culture Volume Using an Automated System: Insights from Pediatric and Adult Simulated Collections Using BACTEC FXI

Turner, D.; Herr, J.

2026-08-25 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.08.21.26361057 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: Capturing adequate blood volume for blood cultures is critical for accurate detection of bloodstream infections. Pediatric volume targets vary by age and weight, whereas adult targets are standardized. The BD BACTEC FXI Culture System (FXI) contains an integrated calibrated load cell capable of automatically reporting blood volume measurements for each vial loaded onto the system. This study evaluated the accuracy of the FXI's blood volume measurements in simulated pediatric and adult patients. Methods: Mock pediatric and adult blood draws were performed, using bagged whole blood, to replicate real-world collection protocols. Syringe-collected blood volumes ranged from 2.0 to 15.0 mL for pediatric patients, depending on mock patient weight, and were fixed at 40.0 mL for adults. Samples were inoculated into BD BACTEC Peds Plus/F, Plus Aerobic/F, and Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F Culture Vials, with a target volume of 2.0 to 10.0 mL per bottle. Reference blood volumes were determined gravimetrically using manually obtained pre- and post-inoculation weights with a blood-specific gravity of 1.055 g/mL and were compared to the automatically measured, gravimetric-based blood volumes reported by the BACTEC FXI Culture System. Results: Automated volume estimates were accurate to a mean error of -0.03 mL per bottle (SD, 0.40 mL; n=168; 95% CI, -0.09 mL, 0.03 mL) and -0.08 mL (SD, 0.79 mL; n=72; 95% CI, -0.26 mL, 0.10 mL) when assessing total volume collected per patient. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that the automated system can quantify blood volumes in BACTEC culture vials and support blood volume monitoring for pediatric and adult collections. The gravimetric approach is also amenable to full automation for efficient and accurate blood volume determination.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.