Anti-Infective Research Laboratory, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Jul;51(7):2077-81. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00448-13. Epub 2013 Apr 17.
We evaluated the ability of four commercial MIC testing systems (MicroScan, Vitek 2, Phoenix, and Etest) to detect vancomycin MIC values of ≤1 to ≥2 in 200 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains compared to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (BMD) reference methods. Compared to the BMD method, absolute agreement (0 ± dilution) was highest for the Phoenix system (66.2%) and the MicroScan turbidity method (61.8%), followed by the Vitek 2 system (54.3%). The Etest produced MIC values 1 to 2 dilutions higher than those produced by the BMD method (36.7% agreement). Of interest, the MicroScan system (prompt method) was more likely to overcall an MIC value of 1 mg/liter (74.1%), whereas the Phoenix (76%) and Vitek 2 (20%) systems had a tendency to undercall an MIC of 2 mg/liter. The ability to correctly identify vancomycin MIC values of 1 and 2 has clinical implications and requires further evaluation.
我们评估了四种商业 MIC 检测系统（MicroScan、Vitek 2、Phoenix 和 Etest）在检测 200 株耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌（MRSA）菌株≤1 至≥2 的万古霉素 MIC 值方面的能力，与临床和实验室标准协会肉汤微量稀释（BMD）参考方法相比。与 BMD 方法相比，Phoenix 系统（66.2%）和 MicroScan 浊度法（61.8%）的绝对一致性（0±稀释）最高，其次是 Vitek 2 系统（54.3%）。Etest 产生的 MIC 值比 BMD 方法高 1 至 2 个稀释度（36.7%一致）。有趣的是，MicroScan 系统（快速方法）更容易过度报告 1 毫克/升的 MIC 值（74.1%），而 Phoenix（76%）和 Vitek 2（20%）系统则倾向于低估 2 毫克/升的 MIC 值。正确识别万古霉素 MIC 值为 1 和 2 的能力具有临床意义，需要进一步评估。
