Tenover F C, Swenson J M, O'Hara C M, Stocker S A
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Jun;33(6):1524-7. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.6.1524-1527.1995.
We evaluated the abilities of 10 commercially available antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods and four reference methods (agar dilution, broth microdilution, disk diffusion, and the agar screen plate) to classify enterococci correctly as vancomycin susceptible or resistant using 50 well-characterized strains of enterococci. There was a high level of agreement of category classification data obtained with broth-based systems (Sceptor, MicroMedia, Pasco, and Sensititre), agar dilution, and an antibiotic gradient method (E test) with data obtained by reference broth microdilution; no very major or major errors were seen, and minor errors were < or = 6%. Increased minor error rates were observed with disk diffusion (12%), Alamar (16%), Uniscept (16%), and conventional (overnight) MicroScan panels (16%). The errors were primarily with Enterococcus casseliflavus strains and organisms containing the vanB vancomycin resistance gene. Very major error rates of 10.3 and 20.7% were observed with Vitek and MicroScan Rapid (MS/Rapid) systems, respectively; however, only the MS/Rapid system produced major errors (13.3%). On repeat testing of discrepant isolates, the very major error rate with the Vitek system dropped to 3.4%, while the very major error rate with the MS/Rapid system increased to 27.6%; major errors with the MS/Rapid system were not resolved. Many of the commercial systems had only 4 dilutions of vancomycin, which resulted in up to 84% of values being off scale (e.g., Uniscept). Of the methods tested, most conventional broth- and agar-based methods proved to be highly accurate when incubation was done for a full 24 h, although several of the tests had high minor error rates. Automated systems continued to demonstrate problems in detecting low-level resistance.
我们使用50株特征明确的肠球菌菌株,评估了10种市售抗菌药物敏感性测试方法和4种参考方法(琼脂稀释法、肉汤微量稀释法、纸片扩散法和琼脂筛选平板法)将肠球菌正确分类为万古霉素敏感或耐药的能力。基于肉汤的系统(Sceptor、MicroMedia、Pasco和Sensititre)、琼脂稀释法和抗生素梯度法(E测试)获得的类别分类数据与参考肉汤微量稀释法获得的数据高度一致;未发现非常重大或重大错误,轻微错误率≤6%。纸片扩散法(12%)、Alamar(16%)、Uniscept(16%)和传统(过夜)MicroScan平板法(16%)的轻微错误率有所增加。这些错误主要发生在格氏肠球菌菌株和含有vanB万古霉素耐药基因的菌株中。Vitek和MicroScan Rapid(MS/Rapid)系统的非常重大错误率分别为10.3%和20.7%;然而,只有MS/Rapid系统出现了重大错误(13.3%)。对有差异的分离株进行重复检测时,Vitek系统的非常重大错误率降至3.4%,而MS/Rapid系统的非常重大错误率升至27.6%;MS/Rapid系统的重大错误未得到解决。许多商业系统只有4种万古霉素稀释度,这导致高达84%的值超出范围(如Uniscept)。在所测试的方法中,大多数传统的基于肉汤和琼脂的方法在孵育满24小时时被证明具有很高的准确性,尽管其中一些测试的轻微错误率较高。自动化系统在检测低水平耐药性方面仍存在问题。