Suppr超能文献

硼酸纸片增效试验与头孢吡肟-克拉维酸法检测产AmpC肠杆菌科细菌中ESBL的比较

Comparison of the boronic acid disk potentiation test and cefepime-clavulanic acid method for the detection of ESBL among AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

作者信息

Shoorashetty R M, Nagarathnamma T, Prathibha J

机构信息

Department of Microbiology, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Ganapathichettikulam, Kalapet, Pondicherry, India.

出版信息

Indian J Med Microbiol. 2011 Jul-Sep;29(3):297-301. doi: 10.4103/0255-0857.83917.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and AmpC β-lactamase are important mechanisms of betalactam resistance among Enterobacteriaceae . The ESBL confirmation test described by Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) is in routine use. This method fails to detect ESBL in the presence of AmpC. Therefore, we compared two different ESBL detection methods against the CLSI confirmatory test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total 200 consecutive clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from various clinical samples were tested for ESBL production using (i) CLSI described phenotypic confirmatory test (PCT), (ii) boronic acid disk potentiation test and (iii) cefepime-CA disk potentiation method. AmpC confirmation was done by a modified three-dimensional test.

RESULTS

Among total 200 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 82 were only ESBL producers, 12 were only AmpC producers, 55 were combined ESBL and AmpC producers, 14 were inducible AmpC producers and 37 isolates did not harboured any enzymes. The CLSI described PCT detected ESBL-producing organisms correctly but failed to detect 36.3% of ESBLs among combined enzyme producers. The boronic acid disk potentiation test reliably detected all ESBL, AmpC, and combined enzyme producers correctly. The cefepime-CA method detected all ESBLs correctly but another method of AmpC detection has to be adopted.

CONCLUSION

The use of boronic acid in disk diffusion testing along with the CLSI described PCT enhances ESBL detection in the presence of AmpC betalactamases.

摘要

目的

超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)和AmpCβ-内酰胺酶是肠杆菌科细菌对β-内酰胺类抗生素耐药的重要机制。临床实验室标准协会(CLSI)描述的ESBL确证试验在常规使用中。该方法在存在AmpC的情况下无法检测到ESBL。因此,我们将两种不同的ESBL检测方法与CLSI确证试验进行了比较。

材料与方法

使用(i)CLSI描述的表型确证试验(PCT)、(ii)硼酸纸片增效试验和(iii)头孢吡肟-克拉维酸纸片增效法,对来自各种临床样本的总共200株连续的肠杆菌科临床分离株进行ESBL产生情况检测。AmpC确证通过改良的三维试验进行。

结果

在总共200株肠杆菌科分离株中,82株仅产ESBL,12株仅产AmpC,55株同时产ESBL和AmpC,14株为可诱导AmpC产生菌,37株分离株未携带任何酶。CLSI描述的PCT能正确检测出产ESBL的菌株,但在同时产两种酶的菌株中未能检测到36.3%的ESBL。硼酸纸片增效试验能可靠地正确检测出所有产ESBL、AmpC和同时产两种酶的菌株。头孢吡肟-克拉维酸法能正确检测出所有ESBL,但必须采用另一种AmpC检测方法。

结论

在纸片扩散试验中使用硼酸并结合CLSI描述的PCT,可提高在存在AmpCβ-内酰胺酶时ESBL的检测率。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验