St. Elisabeth Ziekenhuis, Laboratorium voor Medische Microbiologie en Immunologie, P.O. Box 747, 5000 AS Tilburg, Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Feb;49(2):519-22. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01953-10. Epub 2010 Dec 1.
The worldwide prevalence of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) is increasing, making the need for optimized detection techniques more urgent. In this study we investigated the performance of two ESBL-E screening and two ESBL-E confirmation techniques. In accordance with the Dutch national guidelines (www.wip.nl), a collection of 642 highly resistant Enterobacteriaceae strains, as identified by Vitek2, was used to test the performances of two screening techniques (EbSA ESBL agar plate and ChromID ESBL agar plate) and of two confirmation techniques (MIC-strip ESBL and Vitek2 ESBL test panel). The individual test results were compared by using Etest, followed by a combination disk test if Etest results were inconclusive. Among group 1 isolates (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Proteus spp., Salmonella spp., and Shigella spp.) 291 (57.6%) were ESBL-E, versus 65 (47.4%) in group 2 (Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter spp., Morganella morganii, Serratia spp., and Providencia spp.). The sensitivities of all four tests for group 1 were comparable (EbSA, 96.6%; ChromID, 97.3%; MIC-strip, 99.6%; and Vitek2, 95.1%). The specificities of the EbSA and ChromID were the same (93.9%). However, the confirmation techniques produced many inconclusive test results, which reduces the applicability in routine laboratories. Only the two screening agar plates were validated for ESBL testing of group 2 microorganisms. They showed comparable sensitivities; however, the EbSA screening agar plate had a significantly higher specificity (78.6% versus 44.3%). In conclusion the screening agar plates performed better than the two confirmation techniques. The EbSA agar plate had the best overall performance.
全球产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)肠杆菌科(ESBL-E)的流行率正在上升,这使得优化检测技术变得更加紧迫。在本研究中,我们研究了两种 ESBL-E 筛查和两种 ESBL-E 确认技术的性能。根据荷兰国家指南(www.wip.nl),使用 Vitek2 鉴定的 642 株高度耐药肠杆菌科菌株的集合用于测试两种筛查技术(EbSA ESBL 琼脂平板和 ChromID ESBL 琼脂平板)和两种确认技术(MIC 条 ESBL 和 Vitek2 ESBL 测试板)的性能。通过 Etest 比较各个测试结果,如果 Etest 结果不确定,则进行组合磁盘测试。在组 1 分离物(大肠埃希菌、克雷伯菌属、普罗维登斯菌属、沙门氏菌属和志贺氏菌属)中,291 株(57.6%)为 ESBL-E,而组 2(肠杆菌属、柠檬酸杆菌属、摩氏摩根菌属、沙雷氏菌属和普罗维登斯菌属)中为 65 株(47.4%)。四种测试方法对组 1 的敏感性相当(EbSA,96.6%;ChromID,97.3%;MIC 条,99.6%;和 Vitek2,95.1%)。EbSA 和 ChromID 的特异性相同(93.9%)。然而,确认技术产生了许多不确定的测试结果,这降低了在常规实验室中的适用性。仅对组 2 微生物的 ESBL 测试验证了 EbSA 和 ChromID 两种筛选琼脂平板。它们表现出相当的敏感性;然而,EbSA 筛选琼脂板具有明显更高的特异性(78.6%比 44.3%)。总之,筛选琼脂板的性能优于两种确认技术。EbSA 琼脂板的整体性能最佳。