Suppr超能文献

哌拉西林他唑巴坦纸片扩散法、梯度条法和肉汤微量稀释自动化稀释法药敏试验结果比较。

Comparison of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Results of Disk Diffusion, Gradient Strip, and Automated Dilution with Broth Microdilution for Piperacillin-Tazobactam.

机构信息

Institute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

出版信息

Microb Drug Resist. 2021 Oct;27(10):1305-1311. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2020.0011. Epub 2021 Sep 28.

Abstract

In the treatment of septic patients, the prediction of a pathogen's susceptibility to piperacillintazobactam can be crucial. Commercial tests are available to measure the pathogen's susceptibility to piperacillintazobactam, but there is conflicting evidence regarding their accuracy. Therefore, this study compared the accuracy of disk diffusion, gradient strip, and automated dilution with the accepted standard broth microdilution. Testing was performed on 150 blood culture isolates from hospitalized patients at the University Hospital Bonn. The most recent ( = 50), ( = 50), and ( = 50) isolates were chosen. All measurements were performed strictly according to the manufacturer's instructions. Minimal inhibitory concentrations were primarily interpreted based on EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) 8.1 and supplementarily based on CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) 28th. The results of automated dilution showed a categorical agreement of 93.3% and presented five minor errors, four major errors, and one very major error. The results for gradient strip and disk diffusion were similar, except for the three additional major errors in the gradient strip and two additional very major errors in disk diffusion. Most of the major errors and very major errors were associated with . In conclusion, there was no relevant difference in accuracy between the three compared tests. Their overall categorical agreement ranged from 90.7% to 93.3% and was therefore at the lower end of the threshold. The possibly increased error rate for could be relevant in the preparation of empirical antibiotic guidelines and the treatment of septic patients. Universal Trial Number: U1111-1224-0035.

摘要

在治疗脓毒症患者时,预测病原体对哌拉西林他唑巴坦的敏感性至关重要。目前已有商业化的检测方法可用于测量病原体对哌拉西林他唑巴坦的敏感性,但这些方法的准确性存在争议。因此,本研究比较了纸片扩散法、梯度条法和自动化稀释法与公认的标准肉汤微量稀释法的准确性。该研究在波恩大学医院对 150 株住院患者血培养分离株进行了检测。选择最近的 ( = 50)、 ( = 50)和 ( = 50)分离株。所有测量均严格按照制造商的说明进行。最小抑菌浓度主要根据 EUCAST(欧洲抗菌药物敏感性试验委员会)8.1 进行解释,并根据 CLSI(临床和实验室标准协会)28 进行补充。自动化稀释的结果显示,分类符合率为 93.3%,出现了 5 个次要错误、4 个主要错误和 1 个非常大的错误。梯度条法和纸片扩散法的结果相似,只是梯度条法增加了 3 个主要错误,纸片扩散法增加了 2 个非常大的错误。大多数主要错误和非常大的错误与 有关。总之,三种比较试验的准确性没有显著差异。它们的总体分类符合率在 90.7%到 93.3%之间,因此处于较低的阈值范围内。在制定经验性抗生素指南和治疗脓毒症患者时, 可能增加的错误率可能相关。通用试验编号:U1111-1224-0035。

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