评估梅里埃活性炭和树脂两种不同吸附介质培养瓶报阳时间（TTD）和抗菌药物吸附性能。

采用菌株体外模拟菌血症标本上机检测TTD，在模拟菌血症标本基础上加入庆大霉素、左氧氟沙星、万古霉素、美罗培南抗菌药物，通过TTD评估两种不同吸附介质培养瓶的抗菌药物吸附能力。

培养瓶TTD方面：（1）成人需氧瓶组中树脂瓶TTD比活性炭瓶短，特别是屎肠球菌和大肠埃希菌在树脂瓶中生长速度更快，两者比较差异有统计学意义（P=0.040）；（2）成人厌氧瓶组中树脂瓶TTD与活性炭瓶比较，差异无统计学意义（P=0.638）；（3）儿童瓶组中树脂瓶TTD有较明显的优势，金黄色葡萄球菌在两种瓶中培养的TTD差异较大，两者比较差异有统计学意义（P=0.040）。抗生素吸附性能方面：（1）庆大霉素组、左氧氟沙星组和万古霉素组中树脂需氧瓶TTD均短于活性炭需氧瓶，两者比较差异有统计学意义（均P＜0.001）；（2）庆大霉素组中树脂厌氧瓶TTD相比活性炭厌氧瓶差异不明显，两者比较差异无统计学意义（P=0.822）；左氧氟沙星组中树脂厌氧瓶TTD相比活性炭厌氧瓶更长，两者比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.001）；（3）万古霉素组和美罗培南组中树脂厌氧瓶在规定时间内报告阳性，活性炭厌氧瓶报告阴性，两者比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.001）；（4）庆大霉素组、左氧氟沙星组和万古霉素组中树脂儿童瓶TTD均比活性炭儿童瓶短，两者比较差异有统计学意义（均P＜0.001）。

梅里埃树脂需氧瓶、树脂儿童瓶较活性炭需氧瓶、活性炭儿童瓶的TTD更短，表明其吸附抗菌药物能力更强；树脂厌氧瓶相比活性炭厌氧瓶在TTD方面优势不明显，树脂厌氧瓶对美罗培南和万古霉素有较好的吸附作用，而对庆大霉素的吸附作用相比活性炭厌氧瓶不显著，树脂厌氧瓶对左氧氟沙星的吸附作用不如活性炭厌氧瓶。

To evaluate the incubation time and antibacterial adsorption properties of culture bottles of Meriere activated carbon and resin with different adsorption media.

The incubation time of bacterial strains simulated bacteremia samples in vitro was used to detect the positive detection time. On the basis of the simulated bacteremia samples, antibiotics such as genamicin, levofloxacin, vancomycin and meropenem were added. The antibacterial adsorption capacity of two different adsorption media culture jars was evaluated by the incubation time.

Time to detection of culture bottle: (1) In the aerobic bottle group, the positive detection time of resin bottle was shorter than that of activated carbon bottle, especially the growth rate of Enterococcus faecium and Escherichia coli was faster in resin bottle, and the difference between them was statistically significant (P=0.040). (2) In the anaerobic bottle group, the positive detection time of resin bottle was not significantly better than that of activated carbon bottle, and there was no statistical difference between them (P=0.638). (3) In the children's bottle group, the positive detection time of resin bottle was more obvious. The positive detection time of Staphylococcus aureus cultured in two bottles was significantly different, and there was a statistical difference between them (P=0.040). The adsorption performance of antibiotics: (1) The positive detection time of resin aerobic bottle in Gentamicin group, levofloxacin group and vancomycin group was shorter than that of activated carbon aerobic bottle, and there was statistical difference between them (P＜0.001). (2) In gentamicin group, the positive detection time of resin anaerobic bottle was not significantly different from that of activated carbon anaerobic bottle, and there was no statistical difference between them (P=0.822). The positive detection time of resin anaerobic bottle in levofloxacin group was longer than that of activated carbon anaerobic bottle, and there was statistical difference between them (P＜0.001). (3) In vancomycin group and meropenem group, resin anaerobic bottles reported positive within the specified time, while activated carbon anaerobic bottles reported negative, and there was a statistical difference between the two groups (P＜0.001). (4) The positive detection time of resin bottles in gentamicin group, levofloxacin group and vancomycin group was shorter than that in activated carbon bottles, and there was statistical difference between the two groups (P＜0.001).

The positive detection time of Meriere resin aerobic bottle and resin children's bottle is shorter than that of activated carbon aerobic bottle and activated carbon children's bottle, indicating that their adsorption capacity of antibacterial drugs is stronger. The advantage of resin anaerobic bottle in the positive detection time is not obvious compared with activated carbon anaerobic bottle, and resin anaerobic bottle has better adsorption effect on meropenem and vancomycin. The adsorption of gentamicin was not significant compared with that of activated carbon anaerobic bottle, and the adsorption of levofloxacin on resin anaerobic bottle was not as good as that of activated carbon anaerobic bottle.