Suppr超能文献

比较常用抗菌药物敏感性试验方法以评估肠杆菌科细菌和非发酵革兰阴性杆菌临床分离株对头孢哌酮-舒巴坦的敏感性。

Comparison of commonly used antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for evaluating susceptibilities of clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli to cefoperazone-sulbactam.

作者信息

Jean Shio-Shin, Liao Chun-Hsing, Sheng Wang-Huei, Lee Wen-Sen, Hsueh Po-Ren

机构信息

Emergency Department, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.

出版信息

J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2017 Aug;50(4):454-463. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2015.08.024. Epub 2015 Sep 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the cefoperazone-sulbactam (CFP-SUL) susceptibilities of important Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) by agar dilution (reference method), disk diffusion, and two automated methods.

METHODS

A total of 799 GNB isolates, including Enterobacteriaceae (n = 500) and nonfermentative GNB (NFGNB, n = 299), were recovered from various clinical specimens collected at National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan from November 2013 to December 2014. The agar dilution method, disk diffusion method, and two automated susceptibility systems (Phoenix and Vitek 2) were used for testing susceptibility of the isolates to CFP-SUL. Categories of susceptibility (susceptible, intermediate, or resistant) to CFP-SUL yielded from each method were interpreted according to CFP-SUL interpretive breakpoints proposed previously. The results of categorical agreement and errors obtained between the agar dilution method and the other three methods were analyzed.

RESULTS

The Vitek 2 system had the highest error rates against Escherichia coli (n = 150) and Enterobacter cloacae (n = 77) isolates, i.e., 6.7% and 11.7% minor errors, 8.5% and 1.7% major errors, and 40% and 20% very major errors, respectively. Additionally, the Vitek 2 system was also found to have a significantly lower sensitivity (44.4%) and lower positive predictive value (18.2%) for detecting CFP-SUL nonsusceptible E. coli isolates than other methods. For carbapenem-nonsusceptible Enterobacteriaceae isolates, the Vitek 2 system failed to detect correct susceptibility to CFP-SUL. The three methods failed to correctly detect CFP-SUL susceptibility categories against all NFGNB isolates except Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

CONCLUSION

The Vitek 2 system is a suboptimal method in correctly detecting CFP-SUL susceptibility categories for E. coli, E. cloacae, and carbapenem-nonsusceptible Enterobacteriaceae isolates.

摘要

背景/目的:本研究旨在通过琼脂稀释法(参考方法)、纸片扩散法和两种自动化方法,调查重要革兰氏阴性菌(GNB)对头孢哌酮-舒巴坦(CFP-SUL)的敏感性。

方法

2013年11月至2014年12月期间,从台湾台北国立台湾大学医院收集的各种临床标本中分离出799株GNB,包括肠杆菌科细菌(n = 500)和非发酵GNB(NFGNB,n = 299)。采用琼脂稀释法、纸片扩散法和两种自动化药敏系统(Phoenix和Vitek 2)检测分离株对CFP-SUL的敏感性。根据先前提出的CFP-SUL解释性断点,解释每种方法产生的CFP-SUL敏感性类别(敏感、中介或耐药)。分析琼脂稀释法与其他三种方法之间的类别一致性和误差结果。

结果

Vitek 2系统对大肠埃希菌(n = 150)和阴沟肠杆菌(n = 77)分离株的错误率最高,即轻微错误率分别为6.7%和11.7%,主要错误率分别为8.5%和1.7%,非常主要错误率分别为40%和20%。此外,还发现Vitek 2系统检测CFP-SUL不敏感大肠埃希菌分离株的敏感性(44.4%)和阳性预测值(18.2%)显著低于其他方法。对于碳青霉烯不敏感的肠杆菌科分离株,Vitek 2系统未能正确检测出对CFP-SUL的敏感性。除铜绿假单胞菌外,这三种方法均未能正确检测出所有NFGNB分离株对CFP-SUL的敏感性类别。

结论

Vitek 2系统在正确检测大肠埃希菌、阴沟肠杆菌和碳青霉烯不敏感肠杆菌科分离株的CFP-SUL敏感性类别方面是一种次优方法。

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