Chew W K, Lasaitis R M, Schio F A, Gilbert G L
Mycobacterium Reference Laboratory, Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
J Med Microbiol. 1998 Sep;47(9):821-7. doi: 10.1099/00222615-47-9-821.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical use of a new culture system for the isolation of mycobacteria. Routine clinical specimens were cultured in the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube, the radiometric Bactec 460 TB system and on Lowenstein Jensen (LJ) medium to compare recovery rates and times for detection of mycobacteria and contamination rates. MGIT was tested for its ability to support the growth of a wide range of mycobacterial species. Acid-fast bacilli (AFB) were detected on direct smears of 76 of 603 clinical specimens and mycobacteria were isolated by at least one method from 109 specimens; 93% of these were detected in the MGIT, 95% in the Bactec 460 TB system and 87% on LJ medium. The MGIT, Bactec and LJ media detected 92%, 97% and 95%, respectively, of 61 M. tuberculosis isolates and 94%, 94% and 77% of the 48 isolates belonging to the M. avium complex (MAC). The mean detection times in MGIT, Bactec and LJ media for M. tuberculosis were 22, 14 and 27 days respectively, and for MAC were 14, 12, and 29 days, respectively. Growth of M. tuberculosis was detected in Bactec, within 4 weeks, in 93% of the 61 culture-positive specimens, compared with only 61% in MGIT and 66% on LJ. The number of MAC detected within 4 weeks was similar in Bactec and MGIT, but less in LJ medium. Differences in sensitivity and time to detection of growth between media were greater for specimens in which AFB were not detected on direct smear than those on which AFB were seen. Contamination rates were similar in the three systems (3-4%). MGIT supported the growth of all 28 Mycobacterium spp. inoculated. MGIT has significant safety advantages and is less labour intensive than other methods, but the time to detection of M. tuberculosis, especially in smear-negative specimens, was longer in MGIT than in Bactec.
本研究的目的是评估一种用于分离分枝杆菌的新培养系统的临床应用。将常规临床标本在分枝杆菌生长指示管、放射性测量Bactec 460 TB系统和罗-琴(LJ)培养基上培养,以比较分枝杆菌的回收率、检测时间和污染率。测试了MGIT支持多种分枝杆菌生长的能力。在603份临床标本的直接涂片上,76份检测到抗酸杆菌(AFB),109份标本通过至少一种方法分离出分枝杆菌;其中93%在MGIT中检测到,95%在Bactec 460 TB系统中检测到,87%在LJ培养基上检测到。MGIT、Bactec和LJ培养基分别检测到61株结核分枝杆菌分离株中的92%、97%和95%,以及48株鸟分枝杆菌复合群(MAC)分离株中的94%、94%和77%。MGIT、Bactec和LJ培养基中结核分枝杆菌的平均检测时间分别为22天、14天和27天,MAC的平均检测时间分别为14天、12天和29天。在61份培养阳性标本中,93%在Bactec中4周内检测到结核分枝杆菌生长,而在MGIT中仅为61%,在LJ培养基上为66%。4周内检测到的MAC数量在Bactec和MGIT中相似,但在LJ培养基中较少。与直接涂片上可见AFB的标本相比,直接涂片上未检测到AFB的标本在不同培养基之间的敏感性和生长检测时间差异更大。三种系统的污染率相似(3%-4%)。MGIT支持接种的所有28种分枝杆菌的生长。MGIT具有显著的安全优势,且比其他方法劳动强度小,但MGIT中结核分枝杆菌的检测时间,尤其是涂片阴性标本中的检测时间,比Bactec更长。