Microbiology department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP-Centre Université de Paris, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Microbiology department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP-Centre Université de Paris, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
J Microbiol Methods. 2020 May;172:105902. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105902. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
To comparatively evaluate the performance of the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) system QMAC-dRAST V2.0 and of standard disk diffusion in agar, AST was performed directly from 100 positive blood culture bottles with Gram-negative bacilli. AST results provided by QMAC-dRAST showed 92.9% agreement with disk diffusion method results. Discrepancies observed between results obtained with QMAC-dRAST and disk diffusion method conducted to 10 very major errors (0.8%, S with QMAC-dRAST vs R with disk diffusion method), 40 major errors (3.2%, R vs S, respectively), 15 minor errors (1.2%, S vs I or I vs R, respectively) and 23 very minors errors (1.8%, I vs S or R vs I, respectively). For very major and major errors, in only 36% of the cases did the repeat QMAC-dRAST confirm the initial result, whereas a repeat AST using disk diffusion method confirmed the initial result in 92% of cases. AST results obtained using microdilution in liquid medium confirmed those obtained with QMAC-dRAST and disk diffusion method in 4% and 89%, respectively. Repeatability and reproducibility tests performed on QMAC-dRAST using reference strains showed 94% to 100% of R/S/I categorical agreement.
为了比较快速抗菌药敏检测（AST）系统 QMAC-dRAST V2.0 和标准琼脂扩散法的性能，我们直接对 100 瓶革兰氏阴性菌阳性血培养瓶进行了 AST。QMAC-dRAST 提供的 AST 结果与琼脂扩散法结果的符合率为 92.9%。用 QMAC-dRAST 和琼脂扩散法进行的 AST 结果与 10 个非常大误差（0.8%，用 QMAC-dRAST 表示的 S 与用琼脂扩散法表示的 R）、40 个大误差（3.2%，分别为 R 和 S）、15 个小误差（1.2%，分别为 S 和 I 或 I 和 R）和 23 个非常小误差（1.8%，分别为 I 和 S 或 R 和 I）观察到差异。对于非常大误差和大误差，只有 36%的情况下，重复 QMAC-dRAST 确认了初始结果，而用琼脂扩散法重复 AST 确认初始结果的比例为 92%。用液体培养基进行微量稀释法获得的 AST 结果与 QMAC-dRAST 和琼脂扩散法的符合率分别为 4%和 89%。用参考菌株对 QMAC-dRAST 进行的重复性和再现性测试显示，R/S/I 分类一致性为 94%至 100%。
