Luquin M, Gamboa F, Barceló M G, Manterola J M, Matas L, Giménez M, Ausina V
Departamento de Genética y Microbiología, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Tuber Lung Dis. 1996 Oct;77(5):449-53. doi: 10.1016/s0962-8479(96)90119-7.
The resurgence of tuberculosis and the increase of Mycobacterium avium complex infections have renewed interest in developing more efficient systems for isolation of mycobacteria. The Bactec radiometric method enhances the recovery and shortens the detection time of mycobacteria; however, many clinical laboratories are subject to severe restrictions on the utilization of 14C radiolabelled culture media.
To compare the biphasic MB-Check system in the recovery of mycobacteria from clinical specimens with the Bactec-460 system and Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium.
The MB-Check was evaluated for routine use in a clinical laboratory by comparing the rates and times for isolation of mycobacteria from 1840 clinical specimens with results obtained using the other systems. The isolated organisms were identified by standard procedures and specific deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) probes.
The rate of recovery of all mycobacteria with the MB-Check system was 84.8%, compared to 87.5% for the Bactec-460 system and only 64.2% on LJ. Of the 147 M. tuberculosis isolates recovered by all methods combined, 92.5% were recovered by MB-Check, 87.1% by Bactec and 79.6% on LJ. Of the 109 isolates of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) recovered by all methods combined, 44% were recovered on LJ, 75% by MB-Check and 88% by Bactec (P < 0.001). A combination of the Bactec and MB-Check systems allowed recovery of 99.2% of isolates. The Bactec system showed a faster detection time than the other two methods.
The MB-Check and Bactec systems were more efficient than LJ medium for the isolation of both M. tuberculosis and NTM. The performance of the MB-Check system and the ease with which processing, inspection, detection, and isolation can be performed, indicated that the biphasic approach for cultivation of mycobacteria is feasible and practical. The MB-Check system is more suitable than Bactec system for laboratories that have a small number of specimens or in situations where the disposal of radioactive waste is a problem.
结核病的再度流行以及鸟分枝杆菌复合群感染的增加，使得人们对开发更高效的分枝杆菌分离系统重新产生兴趣。Bactec放射测量法提高了分枝杆菌的回收率并缩短了检测时间；然而，许多临床实验室在使用含14C放射性标记的培养基方面受到严格限制。
比较双相MB-Check系统与Bactec-460系统和罗-琴（LJ）培养基从临床标本中分离分枝杆菌的效果。
通过比较从1840份临床标本中分离分枝杆菌的速率和时间以及使用其他系统获得的结果，对MB-Check在临床实验室中的常规应用进行评估。分离出的微生物通过标准程序和特异性脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）探针进行鉴定。
MB-Check系统分离所有分枝杆菌的回收率为84.8%，Bactec-460系统为87.5%，LJ培养基仅为64.2%。在所有方法联合回收的147株结核分枝杆菌分离株中，MB-Check回收了92.5%，Bactec回收了87.1%，LJ培养基回收了79.6%。在所有方法联合回收的109株非结核分枝杆菌（NTM）分离株中，LJ培养基回收了44%，MB-Check回收了75%，Bactec回收了88%（P<0.001）。Bactec系统和MB-Check系统联合使用可回收99.2%的分离株。Bactec系统的检测时间比其他两种方法更快。
MB-Check系统和Bactec系统在分离结核分枝杆菌和NTM方面比LJ培养基更有效。MB-Check系统的性能以及处理、检查、检测和分离的简便性表明，双相分枝杆菌培养方法是可行且实用的。对于标本数量较少或存在放射性废物处理问题的实验室，MB-Check系统比Bactec系统更合适。
