Carroll Karen C, Borek Anita P, Burger Chad, Glanz Brian, Bhally Hasan, Henciak Susan, Flayhart Diane C
Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jun;44(6):2072-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02636-05.
We evaluated the Phoenix automated microbiology system (BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, MD) for the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of challenge and clinical staphylococci and enterococci recovered from patients in a tertiary-care medical center. In total, 424 isolates were tested: 90 enterococci; 232 Staphylococcus aureus isolates, including 14 vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus isolates; and 102 staphylococci other than S. aureus (non-S. aureus). The Phoenix panels were inoculated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The reference methods for ID comparisons were conventional biochemicals and cell wall fatty acid analysis with the Sherlock microbial identification system (v 3.1; MIDI, Inc. Newark, DE). Agar dilution was the reference AST method. The overall rates of agreement for identification to the genus and the species levels were 99.7% and 99.3%, respectively. All S. aureus isolates and enterococci were correctly identified by the Phoenix panels. For the non-S. aureus staphylococci, there was 98.0% agreement for the ID of 16 different species. The AST results were stratified by organism group. For S. aureus, the categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) were 98.2% and 98.8%, respectively. Three of three very major errors (VMEs; 1.7%) were with oxacillin. For non-S. aureus staphylococci, the CA, EA, VME, major errors, and minor error rates were 95.7%, 96.8%, 0.7%, 1.7%, and 2.9%, respectively. The two VMEs were with oxacillin. For the enterococci, there was 100% CA and 99.3% EA. All 36 vancomycin-resistant enterococci were detected by the Phoenix system. The Phoenix system compares favorably to traditional methods for the ID and AST of staphylococci and enterococci.
我们评估了Phoenix自动化微生物系统(BD诊断系统公司,斯帕克斯,马里兰州),用于对从一家三级医疗中心患者身上分离出的挑战性葡萄球菌和肠球菌以及临床葡萄球菌和肠球菌进行鉴定(ID)和抗菌药物敏感性测试(AST)。总共测试了424株分离菌:90株肠球菌;232株金黄色葡萄球菌分离菌,其中包括14株万古霉素中介金黄色葡萄球菌分离菌;以及102株非金黄色葡萄球菌葡萄球菌(非金黄色葡萄球菌)。按照制造商的说明接种Phoenix鉴定板。用于ID比较的参考方法是传统生化方法以及使用Sherlock微生物鉴定系统(版本3.1;MIDI公司,纽瓦克,特拉华州)进行细胞壁脂肪酸分析。琼脂稀释法是AST的参考方法。在属和种水平上的总体鉴定符合率分别为99.7%和99.3%。所有金黄色葡萄球菌分离菌和肠球菌均被Phoenix鉴定板正确鉴定。对于非金黄色葡萄球菌葡萄球菌,16种不同菌种的ID符合率为98.0%。AST结果按菌种组进行分层。对于金黄色葡萄球菌而言,分类符合率(CA)和基本符合率(EA)分别为98.2%和98.8%。三个非常重大错误(VME;1.7%)均与苯唑西林有关。对于非金黄色葡萄球菌葡萄球菌,CA、EA、VME、重大错误和微小错误率分别为95.7%、96.8%、0.7%、1.7%和2.9%。两个VME与苯唑西林有关。对于肠球菌,CA为100%,EA为99.3%。Phoenix系统检测出了所有36株耐万古霉素肠球菌。Phoenix系统在葡萄球菌和肠球菌的ID及AST方面优于传统方法。