Jensen K T, Schønheyder H, Gottschau A, Thomsen V F
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Statens Seruminstitut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
APMIS. 1994 Feb;102(2):94-102. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1994.tb04852.x.
Susceptibility to teicoplanin and vancomycin was assessed by three disc types: two commercially available discs (NeoSensitabs and PDM disc (30 micrograms)) and one locally prepared 30 micrograms disc (SS disc) on four different medium types: Mueller-Hinton agar (MH medium), MH medium and PDM agar II supplemented with 5% horse blood (HMB medium and PDM medium, respectively), and Danish blood agar (DBA medium). Two previously studied groups of Gram-positive bacteria were tested: group B (N = 75) comprised miscellaneous cocci, and group C (N = 59) mostly rods. With NeoSensitabs, mean zone diameters were larger than with PDM and SS discs on all medium types, and mean zone diameters were larger on DBA medium than on MHB and PDM medium with all disc types. The impact of the medium type on the zone diameter was evaluated for 121 strains growing on MHB medium, PDM medium, and DBA medium. Bacterial groups B and C each divided into three MIC groups were analysed separately. We compared mean zone diameters for each specific group with the average zone diameter, i.e. the mean value for all zone diameters obtained. The smallest deviations from the average zone diameters were observed on PDM medium for both teicoplanin and vancomycin. Thirty-seven percent of strains failed to grow on MH medium, but supplementation of MH medium with horse blood significantly reduced the zone diameter for group B strains both for teicoplanin and vancomycin. Poor predictability of MIC from the zone diameter was found especially for strains with MICs < or = 1 microgram/ml. The medium type hardly affected the results of regression analysis. In contrast, the medium type markedly affected the results of error-rate bounded analysis. No errors were recorded with the SS disc on MHB medium for either teicoplanin or vancomycin, but no strains with MICs of vancomycin within the intermediate group could be correctly classified on DBA medium.
两种市售圆盘(NeoSensitabs和PDM圆盘(30微克))以及一种本地制备的30微克圆盘(SS圆盘),使用四种不同的培养基类型:穆勒-欣顿琼脂(MH培养基)、添加5%马血的MH培养基和PDM琼脂II(分别为HMB培养基和PDM培养基)以及丹麦血琼脂(DBA培养基)。对两组先前研究过的革兰氏阳性菌进行了测试:B组(N = 75)包括各类球菌,C组(N = 59)主要是杆菌。使用NeoSensitabs时,在所有培养基类型上的平均抑菌圈直径均大于使用PDM和SS圆盘时的直径,并且在所有圆盘类型下,DBA培养基上的平均抑菌圈直径均大于MHB和PDM培养基上的直径。对在MHB培养基、PDM培养基和DBA培养基上生长的121株菌株评估了培养基类型对抑菌圈直径的影响。将细菌B组和C组各自分为三个MIC组分别进行分析。我们将每个特定组的平均抑菌圈直径与平均抑菌圈直径进行比较,即所有获得的抑菌圈直径的平均值。对于替考拉宁和万古霉素,在PDM培养基上观察到与平均抑菌圈直径的偏差最小。37%的菌株在MH培养基上无法生长,但在MH培养基中添加马血显著降低了B组菌株对于替考拉宁和万古霉素的抑菌圈直径。发现尤其对于MIC≤1微克/毫升的菌株,抑菌圈直径对MIC的预测性较差。培养基类型对回归分析结果影响不大。相比之下,培养基类型对错误率有界分析结果有显著影响。在MHB培养基上,使用SS圆盘对替考拉宁或万古霉素均未记录到错误,但在DBA培养基上,无法正确分类任何万古霉素MIC处于中介组的菌株。