Benjamin W H, Waites K B, Beverly A, Gibbs L, Waller M, Nix S, Moser S A, Willert M
Departments of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Nov;36(11):3234-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.11.3234-3238.1998.
The MB/BacT system (MB/BacT) with a revised antibiotic supplement kit was compared with the BACTEC 460 system (BACTEC 460) in a test of 488 specimens submitted for mycobacterial culture from 302 patients. Twenty-four Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates were detected by the BACTEC 460 versus 23 isolates by the MB/BacT. Mean time until detection of M. tuberculosis isolates identified by both systems was 11.9 days for the BACTEC 460 versus 13.7 days for the MB/BacT (P = 0.046). M. avium complex was detected in 12 specimens by the MB/BacT versus 10 specimens by the BACTEC 460. Only 8 of 14 (57%) M. avium isolates were detected by both systems, with a mean time until detection of 10.1 days for the BACTEC 460 and 14.2 days for the MB/BacT (P = 0.009). The BACTEC 460 and the MB/BacT detected M. gordonae in four specimens, but only a single specimen was positive by both systems. One M. fortuitum isolate and one of five M. kansasii isolates were recovered only by the BACTEC 460. The bacterial overgrowth rate was 7.0% for the MB/BacT versus 4.1% for the BACTEC 460. We found the MB/BacT to be comparable to the BACTEC 460 for mycobacterial detection. Even though time until detection with the MB/BacT was slightly longer (1.8 days longer for M. tuberculosis and 4.1 days for M. avium [mean values]) and the bacterial overgrowth rate was somewhat higher, the decreased labor, the availability of a computerized data management system, and the noninvasive, nonradiometric aspects of the MB/BacT offset these relative disadvantages and make it an acceptable alternative for use in the diagnostic laboratory.
在一项对302例患者提交的488份用于分枝杆菌培养的标本进行的检测中,将配备改良抗生素补充试剂盒的MB/BacT系统(MB/BacT)与BACTEC 460系统(BACTEC 460)进行了比较。BACTEC 460检测出24株结核分枝杆菌分离株,而MB/BacT检测出23株。两种系统鉴定出的结核分枝杆菌分离株的平均检测时间,BACTEC 460为11.9天,MB/BacT为13.7天(P = 0.046)。MB/BacT在12份标本中检测到鸟分枝杆菌复合群,BACTEC 460在10份标本中检测到。两种系统仅检测出14株鸟分枝杆菌中的8株(57%),平均检测时间,BACTEC 460为10.1天,MB/BacT为14.2天(P = 0.009)。BACTEC 460和MB/BacT在4份标本中检测到戈登分枝杆菌,但两种系统均呈阳性的仅1份标本。仅BACTEC 460分离出1株偶然分枝杆菌和5株堪萨斯分枝杆菌中的1株。MB/BacT的细菌过度生长率为7.0%,BACTEC 460为4.1%。我们发现MB/BacT在分枝杆菌检测方面与BACTEC 460相当。尽管使用MB/BacT的检测时间略长(结核分枝杆菌平均长1.8天,鸟分枝杆菌长4.1天)且细菌过度生长率略高,但MB/BacT减少了劳动强度、具备计算机化数据管理系统以及非侵入性、非放射性的特点弥补了这些相对劣势,使其成为诊断实验室可接受的替代方法。