首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Ability of commercial and reference antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods to detect vancomycin resistance in enterococci.
【2h】

Ability of commercial and reference antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods to detect vancomycin resistance in enterococci.

机译:商业和参考抗菌药物敏感性测试方法检测肠球菌中万古霉素耐药性的能力。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

We evaluated the abilities of 10 commercially available antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods and four reference methods (agar dilution, broth microdilution, disk diffusion, and the agar screen plate) to classify enterococci correctly as vancomycin susceptible or resistant using 50 well-characterized strains of enterococci. There was a high level of agreement of category classification data obtained with broth-based systems (Sceptor, MicroMedia, Pasco, and Sensititre), agar dilution, and an antibiotic gradient method (E test) with data obtained by reference broth microdilution; no very major or major errors were seen, and minor errors were < or = 6%. Increased minor error rates were observed with disk diffusion (12%), Alamar (16%), Uniscept (16%), and conventional (overnight) MicroScan panels (16%). The errors were primarily with Enterococcus casseliflavus strains and organisms containing the vanB vancomycin resistance gene. Very major error rates of 10.3 and 20.7% were observed with Vitek and MicroScan Rapid (MS/Rapid) systems, respectively; however, only the MS/Rapid system produced major errors (13.3%). On repeat testing of discrepant isolates, the very major error rate with the Vitek system dropped to 3.4%, while the very major error rate with the MS/Rapid system increased to 27.6%; major errors with the MS/Rapid system were not resolved. Many of the commercial systems had only 4 dilutions of vancomycin, which resulted in up to 84% of values being off scale (e.g., Uniscept). Of the methods tested, most conventional broth- and agar-based methods proved to be highly accurate when incubation was done for a full 24 h, although several of the tests had high minor error rates. Automated systems continued to demonstrate problems in detecting low-level resistance.
机译:我们评估了10种市售抗药性测试方法和4种参考方法(琼脂稀释,肉汤微稀释,圆盘扩散和琼脂筛板)将50种肠球菌正确表征的肠球菌正确分类为易感或耐药的万古霉素的能力。使用基于肉汤的系统(Sceptor,MicroMedia,Pasco和Sensititre),琼脂稀释和抗生素梯度法(E检验)与通过参考肉汤微稀释获得的数据高度一致。没有看到非常大的或主要的错误,并且次要错误小于或等于6%。磁盘扩散率(12%),Alamar(16%),Uniscept(16%)和常规(过夜)MicroScan面板(16%)的轻微错误率增加了。错误主要是由Casocercus casseliflavus菌株和含有vanB万古霉素抗性基因的生物引起的。 Vitek和MicroScan Rapid(MS / Rapid)系统分别观察到非常大的错误率10.3和20.7%。但是,只有MS / Rapid系统产生了严重错误(13.3%)。重复测试不同的分离物时,Vitek系统的主要错误率降至3.4%,而MS / Rapid系统的主要错误率增至27.6%; MS / Rapid系统的主要错误未解决。许多商业系统只有4种万古霉素稀释液,导致高达84%的值超出规模(例如Uniscept)。在测试的方法中,大多数常规的基于肉汤和琼脂的方法在培养24小时后均被证明是高度准确的,尽管其中一些测试的错误率很高。自动化系统继续证明在检测低电平电阻方面存在问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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