...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Discordant results between the broth disk elution and broth microdilution susceptibility tests with Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.
【24h】

Discordant results between the broth disk elution and broth microdilution susceptibility tests with Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.

机译:用脆弱的拟杆菌(Bacteroides fragilis)组分离物进行的肉汤圆盘洗脱和肉汤微稀释敏感性试验之间的结果不一致。

获取原文
           

摘要

Susceptibility testing of 161 clinical isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group was performed to compare interpretive results generated by the broth disk elution and broth microdilution methods recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Among the cephalosporin-cephamycin compounds tested, correlation was poorest for ceftizoxime (71%), ceftriaxone (57%), and cefotaxime (47%); when the tests did not correlate, false resistance was seen 92, 95, and 93% of the time, respectively. Cefotetan and cefoperazone showed lack of correlation in 19 and 20% of the tests, respectively. For cefotetan, false resistance was more frequent, while with cefoperazone, false susceptibility occurred more often. Cefoxitin produced the fewest discrepancies; 10% of the disk elution tests produced either false-resistance or false-susceptibility results. Mezlocillin and piperacillin showed lack of correlation in 8 and 14% of the tests, respectively, and discrepancies were due primarily to false-resistance results. Overall with the beta-lactams, 84% of the discordant interpretive results were false resistance by the broth disk elution test. Clindamycin had a discrepancy rate of 10%, with the majority of discrepancies being false susceptibility disk elution results. Because of the high number of discrepancies noted with ceftizoxime, ceftriaxone, and cefotaxime, we recommend that these drugs not be tested by the disk elution method and that they be tested by a quantitative MIC method such as the broth microdilution test. Furthermore, caution should be exercised when interpreting broth disk elution results with all the beta-lactams included in this study except imipenem. These data indicate the lack of correlation of results between these two tests for many beta-lactams and suggest the need for a reexamination of the disk elution method to provide a more accurately standardized test.
机译:进行了脆弱拟杆菌(Bacteroides fragilis)组的161种临床分离株的药敏试验,以比较国家临床实验室标准委员会推荐的肉汤圆盘洗脱法和肉汤微量稀释法产生的解释结果。在测试的头孢菌素-头孢霉素化合物中,头孢唑肟(71%),头孢曲松(57%)和头孢噻肟(47%)的相关性最差;当测试不相关时,分别在92%,95%和93%的时间中看到错误的抵抗力。头孢替坦和头孢哌酮分别在19%和20%的试验中显示缺乏相关性。对于头孢替坦,假药耐药率更高,而对头孢哌酮而言,假药敏率更高。头孢西丁的差异最小。磁盘洗脱测试的10%产生了抗错误或错误敏感性的结果。美洛西林和哌拉西林分别在8%和14%的测试中显示缺乏相关性,差异主要是由于抗药性结果造成的。总体而言,使用β-内酰胺类药物,通过肉汤圆盘洗脱测试,有84%的不一致结果是假耐药。克林霉素的差异率为10%,大多数差异是假药敏磁盘洗脱结果。由于头孢唑肟,头孢曲松和头孢噻肟存在大量差异,因此我们建议不要使用圆盘洗脱法对这些药物进行检测,而建议使用肉汤微量稀释试验等定量MIC方法对这些药物进行检测。此外,在解释含亚胺培南的本研究中所有β-内酰胺的肉汤圆盘洗脱结果时应谨慎行事。这些数据表明,对于许多β-内酰胺类,这两个测试之间结果之间缺乏相关性,并表明需要对盘洗脱方法进行重新检验以提供更准确的标准化测试。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号