Kulah Canan, Aktas Elif, Comert Fusun, Ozlu Nagihan, Akyar Isin, Ankarali Handan
Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Zonguldak, Turkey.
BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Mar 16;9:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-30.
Increasing reports of carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections are of serious concern. Reliable susceptibility testing results remains a critical issue for the clinical outcome. Automated systems are increasingly used for species identification and susceptibility testing. This study was organized to evaluate the accuracies of three widely used automated susceptibility testing methods for testing the imipenem susceptibilities of A. baumannii isolates, by comparing to the validated test methods.
Selected 112 clinical isolates of A. baumanii collected between January 2003 and May 2006 were tested to confirm imipenem susceptibility results. Strains were tested against imipenem by the reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD), Etest, BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway and Vitek 2 automated systems. Data were analysed by comparing the results from each test method to those produced by the reference BMD test.
MicroScan performed true identification of all A. baumannii strains while Vitek 2 unidentified one strain, Phoenix unidentified two strains and misidentified two strains. Eighty seven of the strains (78%) were resistant to imipenem by BMD. Etest, Vitek 2 and BD Phoenix produced acceptable error rates when tested against imipenem. Etest showed the best performance with only two minor errors (1.8%). Vitek 2 produced eight minor errors(7.2%). BD Phoenix produced three major errors (2.8%). DD produced two very major errors (1.8%) (slightly higher (0.3%) than the acceptable limit) and three major errors (2.7%). MicroScan showed the worst performance in susceptibility testing with unacceptable error rates; 28 very major (25%) and 50 minor errors (44.6%).
Reporting errors for A. baumannii against imipenem do exist in susceptibility testing systems. We suggest clinical laboratories using MicroScan system for routine use should consider using a second, independent antimicrobial susceptibility testing method to validate imipenem susceptibility. Etest, whereever available, may be used as an easy method to confirm imipenem susceptibility.
耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌感染的报道日益增多,令人严重关切。可靠的药敏试验结果仍然是影响临床结局的关键问题。自动化系统越来越多地用于菌种鉴定和药敏试验。本研究旨在通过与经过验证的试验方法进行比较,评估三种广泛使用的自动化药敏试验方法检测鲍曼不动杆菌分离株亚胺培南敏感性的准确性。
选取2003年1月至2006年5月间收集的112株鲍曼不动杆菌临床分离株,检测其亚胺培南敏感性结果。采用参考肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)、纸片扩散法(DD)、Etest法、BD Phoenix系统、MicroScan WalkAway系统和Vitek 2自动化系统对菌株进行亚胺培南检测。通过将每种试验方法的结果与参考BMD试验的结果进行比较来分析数据。
MicroScan对所有鲍曼不动杆菌菌株进行了正确鉴定,而Vitek 2未鉴定出1株,Phoenix未鉴定出2株,误鉴定出2株。BMD法检测显示87株(78%)菌株对亚胺培南耐药。Etest法、Vitek 2法和BD Phoenix法检测亚胺培南时产生的误差率可接受。Etest法表现最佳,仅有2个小误差(1.8%)。Vitek 2法产生了8个小误差(7.2%)。BD Phoenix法产生了3个大误差(2.8%)。DD法产生了2个非常大的误差(1.8%)(略高于可接受限度0.3%)和3个大误差(2.7%)。MicroScan法在药敏试验中表现最差,误差率不可接受;28个非常大的误差(25%)和50个小误差(44.6%)。
药敏试验系统中存在鲍曼不动杆菌对亚胺培南的报告误差。我们建议常规使用MicroScan系统的临床实验室应考虑使用第二种独立的抗菌药物敏感性试验方法来验证亚胺培南敏感性。如有条件,Etest法可作为确认亚胺培南敏感性的简便方法。