Background: Blood cultures (BCs) are key diagnostic elements for sepsis patients. Accurate preanalytical procedures are substantial, and results should be available as soon as possible to guide adequate antimicrobial treatment. This study aimed to evaluate BC collection practices and diagnostic capacity across European hospitals. Methods: This cross-sectional survey investigated BC diagnostics in acute care hospitals across 37 European countries in the years 2021 and 2022. Analyses included BC guidelines, collection sites, number of BC sets in emergency departments (EDs), wards, and intensive care units (ICUs). We also examined transfer after collection, the use of on-site vs. external laboratories, opening hours, rapid testing capacity, and turn-around times of BCs processed in microbiology laboratories with different infrastructures. Findings: Responses were collected from 907 hospitals in Europe. BC guidelines were available in 84·4% (741/878) of the hospitals. BCs were preferably collected by multiple-site sampling in EDs (62·7%, 461/735), in wards (64·0%, 513/802) and ICUs (68·5%, 518/756). One BC set was preferred in EDs in 38·4% (270/704), in wards in 40·5% (314/775), and ICUs in 34·9% (261/748). Two BC sets were preferred in EDs in 31·0% (218/704), in wards in 28·1% (218/775), and ICUs in 39·2% (293/748). 48·0% (402/838) of hospitals used on-site and 52·0% (436/838) external microbiology laboratories. Around-the-clock microbiological services were available in 10⋅0% (91/907), and rapid pathogen identification in 43·7% (396/907) of hospitals. Infrastructure with around-the-clock microbiological service and rapid testing was available in 7·4% (62/840) of hospitals, and probability of a final microbiological result within two days was highest in these hospitals compared to hospitals with limited microbiology service (for BC collected on wards: 19·6% vs. 52·7%, Odds Ratio 4·59 [95% CI 2·50–7·79], p < 0·0001). Interpretation: Despite the availability of BC guidelines in many hospitals, current recommendations for BC collection were often neglected. Rapid testing capacity was limited in most microbiological laboratories, and around-the-clock service for BCs was very rare. As delay in results may have a detrimental impact on patient outcomes, strategies to improve these processes are urgently needed. Funding: The European Sepsis Alliance and a grant by Becton and Dickinson.

Scheer, C.S., Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.J., Annane, D., Artigas, A., Tarik Aslan, A., Bottari, G., et al. (2026). Blood culture practices and microbiological capacity for sepsis diagnostics in Europe (2021–2022): a cross-sectional analysis of the European Sepsis Care Survey. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. EUROPE, 62, 1-15 [10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101570].

Blood culture practices and microbiological capacity for sepsis diagnostics in Europe (2021–2022): a cross-sectional analysis of the European Sepsis Care Survey

Catena, Fausto;
2026

Abstract

Background: Blood cultures (BCs) are key diagnostic elements for sepsis patients. Accurate preanalytical procedures are substantial, and results should be available as soon as possible to guide adequate antimicrobial treatment. This study aimed to evaluate BC collection practices and diagnostic capacity across European hospitals. Methods: This cross-sectional survey investigated BC diagnostics in acute care hospitals across 37 European countries in the years 2021 and 2022. Analyses included BC guidelines, collection sites, number of BC sets in emergency departments (EDs), wards, and intensive care units (ICUs). We also examined transfer after collection, the use of on-site vs. external laboratories, opening hours, rapid testing capacity, and turn-around times of BCs processed in microbiology laboratories with different infrastructures. Findings: Responses were collected from 907 hospitals in Europe. BC guidelines were available in 84·4% (741/878) of the hospitals. BCs were preferably collected by multiple-site sampling in EDs (62·7%, 461/735), in wards (64·0%, 513/802) and ICUs (68·5%, 518/756). One BC set was preferred in EDs in 38·4% (270/704), in wards in 40·5% (314/775), and ICUs in 34·9% (261/748). Two BC sets were preferred in EDs in 31·0% (218/704), in wards in 28·1% (218/775), and ICUs in 39·2% (293/748). 48·0% (402/838) of hospitals used on-site and 52·0% (436/838) external microbiology laboratories. Around-the-clock microbiological services were available in 10⋅0% (91/907), and rapid pathogen identification in 43·7% (396/907) of hospitals. Infrastructure with around-the-clock microbiological service and rapid testing was available in 7·4% (62/840) of hospitals, and probability of a final microbiological result within two days was highest in these hospitals compared to hospitals with limited microbiology service (for BC collected on wards: 19·6% vs. 52·7%, Odds Ratio 4·59 [95% CI 2·50–7·79], p < 0·0001). Interpretation: Despite the availability of BC guidelines in many hospitals, current recommendations for BC collection were often neglected. Rapid testing capacity was limited in most microbiological laboratories, and around-the-clock service for BCs was very rare. As delay in results may have a detrimental impact on patient outcomes, strategies to improve these processes are urgently needed. Funding: The European Sepsis Alliance and a grant by Becton and Dickinson.
2026
Scheer, C.S., Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.J., Annane, D., Artigas, A., Tarik Aslan, A., Bottari, G., et al. (2026). Blood culture practices and microbiological capacity for sepsis diagnostics in Europe (2021–2022): a cross-sectional analysis of the European Sepsis Care Survey. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. EUROPE, 62, 1-15 [10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101570].
Scheer, Christian S.; Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Evangelos J.; Annane, Djillali; Artigas, Antonio; Tarik Aslan, Abdullah; Bottari, Gabriella; Bouma, Hjal...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/1040652
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact