Pfyffer G E, Welscher H M, Kissling P, Cieslak C, Casal M J, Gutierrez J, Rüsch-Gerdes S
Department of Medical Microbiology, Swiss National Center for Mycobacteria, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Feb;35(2):364-8. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.2.364-368.1997.
In a multicenter study involving three reference centers for mycobacteria, the rate of recovery of acid-fast bacilli (AFB) and the mean time to their detection from clinical specimens was determined by using the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT). These parameters were compared to those assessed by the radiometric BACTEC 460 TB system and by cultivation on solid media. Clinical specimens (n = 1,500) were pretreated with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NALC)-NaOH. The contamination rates for MGITs were 2.0% (center 1), 13.8% (center 2), and 6.1% (center 3). A total of 180 mycobacterial isolates were detected (M. tuberculosis complex, n = 113; nontuberculous mycobacteria [NTM], n = 67). When using a combination of liquid and solid media (the current "gold standard" for culture), MGIT plus solid media detected 156 (86.7%) of the isolates, whereas BACTEC plus solid media recovered 168 (93.3%) of all AFB. Between these two gold standards there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). The combination of MGIT plus BACTEC detected 171 (95.0%) of all isolates (compared with MGIT plus solid media, P < 0.01; compared with BACTEC plus solid media, P > 0.05). Considering the efficacies of the different media separately, MGIT was superior to solid media (although not significantly; P > 0.05) in detecting AFB but was inferior to the BACTEC system (P < 0.01). The mean time to the detection of M. tuberculosis complex was 9.9 days with MGIT, 9.7 days with BACTEC, and 20.2 days with solid media. NTM needed, on average, 11.9, 13.0, and 22.2 days to appear by the three methods, respectively. In conclusion, MGIT proved to be a valuable alternative to the radiometric cultivation system.
在一项涉及三个分枝杆菌参考中心的多中心研究中,使用分枝杆菌生长指示管(MGIT)测定了抗酸杆菌(AFB)的回收率及其从临床标本中检测到的平均时间。将这些参数与通过放射性BACTEC 460结核系统和固体培养基培养评估的参数进行比较。临床标本(n = 1500)用N - 乙酰 - L - 半胱氨酸(NALC)-氢氧化钠进行预处理。MGIT的污染率分别为2.0%(中心1)、13.8%(中心2)和6.1%(中心3)。共检测到180株分枝杆菌分离株(结核分枝杆菌复合群,n = 113;非结核分枝杆菌[NTM],n = 67)。当使用液体和固体培养基组合(当前培养的“金标准”)时,MGIT加固体培养基检测到156株(86.7%)分离株,而BACTEC加固体培养基回收了所有AFB的168株(93.3%)。在这两种金标准之间没有统计学显著差异(P > 0.05)。MGIT加BACTEC组合检测到所有分离株的171株(95.0%)(与MGIT加固体培养基相比,P < 0.01;与BACTEC加固体培养基相比,P > 0.05)。分别考虑不同培养基的效能,MGIT在检测AFB方面优于固体培养基(尽管不显著;P > 0.05),但不如BACTEC系统(P < 0.01)。检测结核分枝杆菌复合群的平均时间,MGIT为9.9天,BACTEC为9.7天,固体培养基为20.2天。NTM通过这三种方法分别平均需要11.9天、13.0天和22.2天出现。总之,MGIT被证明是放射性培养系统的一种有价值的替代方法。