Suppr超能文献

用于确定万古霉素敏感性及对万古霉素敏感性降低菌株的最低抑菌浓度的不同抗菌药物敏感性检测方法

Different Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods to Determine Vancomycin Susceptibility and MIC for with Reduced Vancomycin Susceptibility.

作者信息

Chung Hae-Sun, Lee Miae

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul 07804, Korea.

Ewha Education and Research Center for Infection, Seoul 07985, Korea.

出版信息

Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Mar 29;12(4):845. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12040845.

Abstract

The methods and results obtained using commercialized automation systems used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing are not entirely consistent. Therefore, we evaluated different antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods to determine vancomycin susceptibility and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility (SA-RVS). A total of 128 clinical isolates of S. aureus were tested, including 99 isolates showing an MIC of ≥2 µg/mL using the VITEK2 system (VITEK2). Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed using the Sensititre system (Sensititre), Phoenix M50 system (Phoenix), and MicroScan WalkAway 96 Plus system (MicroScan). Vancomycin MICs were determined using the broth microdilution method (BMD) and Etest. Essential agreement and category agreement for each method were compared with BMD results as the reference method. The BMD and Etest showed complete essential agreement (100%). VITEK2, Sensititre, and Phoenix showed high essential agreement (>99%), while MicroScan showed the lowest essential agreement (92.2%). The MIC MICs determined via Etest, VITEK2, and MicroScan tended to be higher than that determined via BMD. When comparing BMD with Etest, the category agreement was 93.8% and minor errors were observed for eight isolates. VITEK2, Sensititre, and Phoenix showed category agreements of 96.1%, 96.1%, and 99.2%, respectively, while MicroScan showed the lowest category agreement of 85.2%. The determination of vancomycin susceptibility and MIC for S. aureus varied among the methods. Caution should be taken when interpreting RVS and intermediate results for S. aureus. For confirmation of SA-RVS results, it would be appropriate to test with BMD or a more reliable testing method.

摘要

用于抗菌药物敏感性测试的商业化自动化系统所获得的方法和结果并不完全一致。因此,我们评估了不同的抗菌药物敏感性测试方法,以确定对万古霉素敏感性降低的金黄色葡萄球菌(SA-RVS)的万古霉素敏感性和最低抑菌浓度(MIC)。共检测了128株金黄色葡萄球菌临床分离株,其中99株使用VITEK2系统(VITEK2)显示MIC≥2μg/mL。使用Sensititre系统(Sensititre)、Phoenix M50系统(Phoenix)和MicroScan WalkAway 96 Plus系统(MicroScan)进行抗菌药物敏感性测试。采用肉汤微量稀释法(BMD)和Etest测定万古霉素MIC。将每种方法的基本一致性和类别一致性与作为参考方法的BMD结果进行比较。BMD和Etest显示完全基本一致性(100%)。VITEK2、Sensititre和Phoenix显示出较高的基本一致性(>99%),而MicroScan显示出最低的基本一致性(92.2%)。通过Etest、VITEK2和MicroScan测定的MIC往往高于通过BMD测定的MIC。将BMD与Etest进行比较时,类别一致性为93.8%,观察到8株分离株有微小误差。VITEK2、Sensititre和Phoenix的类别一致性分别为96.1%、96.1%和99.2%,而MicroScan的类别一致性最低,为85.2%。不同方法对金黄色葡萄球菌万古霉素敏感性和MIC的测定结果存在差异。在解释金黄色葡萄球菌的RVS和中介结果时应谨慎。为确认SA-RVS结果,用BMD或更可靠的测试方法进行检测是合适的。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验