Frédéric Ric S, Antoine M, Bodson A, Lissoir B
Trainee in Laboratory Medicine, Université Catholique de Louvain , Belgique.
Acta Clin Belg. 2015 Oct;70(5):325-30. doi: 10.1179/2295333715Y.0000000026. Epub 2015 May 6.
The objective of this study was to compare an in-house matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization with time of flight (MALDI-TOF) method and a commercial MALDI-TOF kit (Sepsityper(®) kit) for direct bacterial identification in positive blood cultures. We also evaluated the time saved and the cost associated with the rapid identification techniques.
We used the BACTEC(®) automated system for detecting positive blood cultures. Direct identification using Sepsityper kit and the in-house method were compared with conventional identification by MALDI-TOF using pure bacterial culture on the solid phase. We also evaluated different cut-off scores for rapid bacterial identification.
In total, 127 positive blood vials were selected. The rate of rapid identification with the MALDI Sepsityper kit was 25.2% with the standard cut-off and 33.9% with the enlarged cut-off, while the results for the in-house method were 44.1 and 61.4%, respectively. Error rates with the enlarged cut-off were 6.98 (n = 3) and 2.56% (n = 2) for Sepsityper and the in-house method, respectively. Identification rates were higher for gram-negative bacteria.
Direct bacterial identification succeeded in supplying rapid identification of the causative organism in cases of sepsis. The time taken to obtain a result was nearly 24 hours shorter for the direct bacterial identification methods than for conventional MALDI-TOF on solid phase culture. Compared with the Sepsityper kit, the in-house method offered better results and fewer errors, was more cost-effective and easier to use.
本研究的目的是比较一种内部基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间(MALDI-TOF)方法和一种商业MALDI-TOF试剂盒(Sepsityper®试剂盒)用于直接鉴定阳性血培养物中的细菌。我们还评估了快速鉴定技术节省的时间和相关成本。
我们使用BACTEC®自动化系统检测阳性血培养物。将使用Sepsityper试剂盒和内部方法的直接鉴定与使用固相纯细菌培养物通过MALDI-TOF进行的传统鉴定进行比较。我们还评估了用于快速细菌鉴定的不同截断分数。
总共选择了127个阳性血瓶。使用MALDI Sepsityper试剂盒的快速鉴定率在标准截断值下为25.2%,在扩大截断值下为33.9%,而内部方法的结果分别为44.1%和61.4%。对于Sepsityper和内部方法,扩大截断值时的错误率分别为6.98%(n = 3)和2.56%(n = 2)。革兰氏阴性菌的鉴定率更高。
直接细菌鉴定成功地在败血症病例中快速鉴定出病原体。与固相培养上的传统MALDI-TOF相比,直接细菌鉴定方法获得结果所需的时间缩短了近24小时。与Sepsityper试剂盒相比,内部方法效果更好、错误更少、更具成本效益且更易于使用。