Sahm D F, Boonlayangoor S, Schulz J E
Clinical Microbiology Laboratories, University of Chicago Medical Center, Illinois 60637.
J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Nov;29(11):2595-8. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.11.2595-2598.1991.
The ability of six screening methods to detect high-level aminoglycoside resistance in enterococcal species other than Enterococcus faecalis was investigated. The 85 Enterococcus isolates, which included 55 E. faecium, 11 E. gallinarum, 9 E. casseliflavus, 5 E. raffinosus, 4 E. avium, and 1 E. mundtii, were tested by using aminoglycoside-supplemented brain heart infusion agar (BHI), Remel EF Synergy Quad plates, high-content aminoglycoside diffusion disks, standard (prepared in-house) microdilution panels, Pasco MIC Gram Positive microdilution panels, and Vitek GPS-TA cards. When tested on BHI, 32 and 35 strains showed resistance to gentamicin and streptomycin, respectively. Resistance profiles obtained with Remel EF Synergy Quad plates were in complete agreement with those obtained on BHI. However, growth on Mueller-Hinton agar-based plates was not as heavy. Some isolates showed only weak growth and required 48 h for resistance to become evident, especially with swab inoculation of quadrants containing 2,000 micrograms of gentamicin per ml. Profiles obtained by use of the agar-based screens were used as the basis for evaluating the other methods. Disk diffusion showed complete agreement. No false resistance occurred by either microdilution method, but 48 h of incubation was needed for detection of some gentamicin-resistant isolates, and 14% of the streptomycin-resistant strains were not detected by standard microdilution. The Vitek GPS-TA card detected 81 and 100% of the gentamicin- and streptomycin-resistant isolates, respectively. In general, most methods used to detect high-level aminoglycoside resistance in E. faecalis appear to be reliable for the testing of the other enterococcal species. However, further investigations with a greater number of resistant E. raffinosus, E. avium, and E. mundtii isolates, when they are available, will be useful for establishing the full range of enterococci that can reliably be tested by the various methods.
研究了六种筛选方法检测粪肠球菌以外的肠球菌属中高水平氨基糖苷类耐药性的能力。使用补充了氨基糖苷类的脑心浸液琼脂(BHI)、Remel EF协同四联板、高含量氨基糖苷扩散盘、标准(自制)微量稀释板、Pasco MIC革兰氏阳性微量稀释板和Vitek GPS-TA卡对85株肠球菌分离株进行了检测,这些分离株包括55株屎肠球菌、11株鹑鸡肠球菌、9株格氏肠球菌、5株棉子糖肠球菌、4株鸟肠球菌和1株蒙氏肠球菌。在BHI上进行检测时,分别有32株和35株菌株对庆大霉素和链霉素耐药。Remel EF协同四联板获得的耐药谱与在BHI上获得的完全一致。然而,基于Mueller-Hinton琼脂的平板上的生长情况不如BHI上旺盛。一些分离株仅生长微弱,需要48小时才能明显显示出耐药性,尤其是用拭子接种每毫升含2000微克庆大霉素的象限。基于琼脂的筛选方法获得的谱图被用作评估其他方法的基础。纸片扩散法显示完全一致。两种微量稀释法均未出现假耐药,但检测一些庆大霉素耐药分离株需要48小时培养,标准微量稀释法未检测到14%的链霉素耐药菌株。Vitek GPS-TA卡分别检测到81%和100%的庆大霉素和链霉素耐药分离株。一般来说,大多数用于检测粪肠球菌中高水平氨基糖苷类耐药性的方法似乎对检测其他肠球菌属物种是可靠的。然而,当有更多的棉子糖肠球菌、鸟肠球菌和蒙氏肠球菌耐药分离株时,进一步研究将有助于确定各种方法能够可靠检测的肠球菌的完整范围。