Lysis filtration (LyF) was compared with BACTEC PAEDS PLUS in estimating the prevalence of, and sensitivity for, detection of odontogenic bacteremia. Both real bacteremia and simulated bacteremia (seeded blood or saline samples) were assessed to determine the validity of LyF in estimating bacteremia. The simulated bacteremia was also used to assess the reliability of LyF to estimate intensity of bacteremia in CFU per milliliter of blood. Reference organisms were used to assess the abilities of LyF and BACTEC to isolate known oral streptococci. There was no difference in the number of CFU per milliliter of seeded saline, seeded blood, and drop cultures of the organisms plated directly onto agar. Blood cell volume had a negligible effect on the yield of organisms for simulated bacteremia. When LyF and BACTEC were compared, the time to detection of bacteremia was always significantly shorter for BACTEC. For aerobic cultures, these times were 43.7 and 9.6 h, respectively (P < 0.01). For anaerobic cultures, these times were 45.1 and 9.9 h, respectively (P < 0.01). These differences occurred as well for bacteremia following the extraction of a single tooth, with LyF and BACTEC aerobic cultures taking 78 and 30.5 h, respectively (P < 0.0001). For anaerobic cultures, the times were 90.8 and 45 h, respectively (P < 0.0004). A preextraction bacteremia was detected on 2.1% of occasions with BACTEC compared to 31% of occasions with LyF (P < 0.05) The use of LyF was an effective and reliable means of estimating the intensity of pre-and postextraction bacteremia. The values were 3.6 and 5.9 CFU/ml, respectively (P < 0.4729), and the difference was not statistically significant. In summary, BACTEC is quicker than LyF, but less sensitive. LyF provides additional important information in estimating the intensity of bacteremia.
