1887

Abstract

One hundred and one randomly selected (2003–2005) clinical isolates of were used to assess the quantitative (MIC) and qualitative (susceptibility category) agreement between the microdilution broth reference method (RM) and disc diffusion (DD), Etest and the VITEK 2 automated susceptibility test system for determination of the susceptibility of to piperacillin (PIP), PIP–tazobactam (TZP), ceftazidime (CAZ), aztreonam (ATM) cefepime (FEP) and imipenem (IMP). The results obtained by the RM were compared with those obtained by the other methods. The RM and DD were performed according to CLSI criteria. Etest and VITEK 2 were according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Advanced Expert System (AES), which interprets MICs generated by VITEK 2, was modified with new rules of interpretation. Overall, VITEK 2 showed the lowest MIC values for the six antibiotics. The RM categorical testing (susceptibility and resistance) rates with were 11.8 and 88.1 for PIP, 22.7 and 77.2 for TZP, 14.8 and 78.2 for CAZ, 12.8 and 54.4 for ATM, 16.8 and 75.3 for FEP, and 7.9 and 90.1 for IMP, respectively. Very major errors (false susceptible) were only detected for ATM and FEP with DD and for IMP with three methods. Major errors (false resistant) were generally acceptable for all antibiotics except TZP. VITEK 2 yielded a high level of minor errors (trends toward false susceptibility), mainly with CAZ and FEP. A good agreement was obtained for all antibiotics/methods assayed, thus highlighting the importance of the AES for categorization of -lactam susceptibility in .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.005587-0
2009-05-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/58/5/625.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.005587-0&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Biedenbach, D. J. & Jones, R. N. ( 1995; ). Interpretive errors using an automated system for the susceptibility testing of imipenem and aztreonam. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 21, 57–60.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biedenbach, D. J., Marshal, S. A. & Jones, R. N. ( 1999; ). Accuracy of cefepime antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for Pseudomonas aeruginosa tested on the MicroScan WalkAway system. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 33, 305–307.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Burns, J. L., Saiman, L., Whittier, S., Krzewinski, J., Liu, Z., Larone, D., Marshall, S. A. & Jones, R. N. ( 2001; ). Comparison of two commercial systems (Vitek and MicroScan-WalkAway) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 39, 257–260.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CLSI ( 2007; ). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Seventeenth Informational Supplement. M100-S17. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.
  5. Doern, G. V., Brueggemann, A. B., Perla, R., Daly, J., Halkias, D., Jones, R. N. & Sanbolle, M. A. ( 1997; ). Multicenter laboratory evaluation of the bioMerieux Vitek antimicrobial susceptibility testing system with 11 antimicrobial agents versus members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol 35, 2115–2119.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Felmingham, D. & Brown, D. F. J. ( 2001; ). Instrumentation in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J Antimicrob Chemother 48 (Suppl. 1), 81–85.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jones, R. N. ( 2001; ). Method preferences and test accuracy of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med 125, 1285–1289.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jones, R. N., Biedenbach, D. J., Marshall, S. A., Pfaller, M. A. & Doern, G. V. ( 1998; ). Evaluation of the Vitek system to accurately test the susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates against cefepime. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 32, 107–110.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Joyanes, P., Conejo, M. C., Martinez-Martinez, L. & Perea, E. J. ( 2001; ). Evaluation of the VITEK 2 system for the identification and susceptibility testing of three species of nonfermenting gram-negative rods frequently isolated from clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol 39, 3247–3253.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Juretschko, S., LaBombardi, V. J., Lerner, S. & Schreckenberger, P. C., the, Pseudomonas AST Study Group. ( 2007; ). Accuracies of β-lactam susceptibility test results for Pseudomonas aeruginosa with four automated systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan, WalkAway, and Vitek 2). J Clin Microbiol 45, 1339–1342.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Karlowsky, J. A., Weaver, M. K., Thornsberry, C., Dowzicky, M. J., Jones, M. E. & Sahm, D. F. ( 2003; ). Comparison of four antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods to determine the in vitro activities of piperacillin and piperacillin-tazobactam against clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol 41, 3339–3343.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Leverstein-van Hall, M. A., Fluit Paaum, A., Box, A. T. A., Brisse, S. & Verhoef, J. ( 2002; ). Evaluation of the Etest ESBL and the BD Phoenix, VITEK 1, and VITEK 2 automated instruments for detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in multiresistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. J Clin Microbiol 40, 3703–3711.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ling, T. K. W., Tam, P. C., Liu, Z. K. & Cheng, A. F. B. ( 2001; ). Evaluation of VITEK 2 rapid identification and susceptibility testing system against gram-negative clinical isolates. J Clin Microbiol 39, 2964–2966.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Livermore, D. M. ( 2001; ). Of Pseudomonas, porins, pumps and carbapenems. J Antimicrob Chemother 47, 247–250.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Livermore, D. M., Struelens, M., Amorim, J., Baquero, F., Bille, J., Canton, R., Henning, S., Gatermann, S., Marchese, A. & other authors ( 2002; ). Multicentre evaluation of the VITEK2 advanced expert system for interpretative reading of antimicrobial resistance tests. J Antimicrob Chemother 49, 289–300.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Micek, S. T., Lloyd, A. E., Ritchie, D., Reichley, R. M., Fraser, V. J. & Kollef, M. H. ( 2005; ). Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infection: importance of appropriate initial antimicrobial treatment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49, 1306–1311.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NCCLS ( 1997; ). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests. Approved Standard M2-A6. Wayne, PA: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards.
  18. Quale, J., Bratu, S., Gupta, J. & Landman, D. ( 2006; ). Interplay of efflux system, ampC, and oprD expression in carbapenem resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50, 1633–1641.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sader, H. S., Fritsche, T. R. & Jones, R. N. ( 2006; ). Accuracy of three automated systems (MicroScan WalkAway, VITEK, and VITEK 2) for susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa against five broad-spectrum beta-lactam agents. J Clin Microbiol 44, 1101–1104.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Saegeman, V., Huynen, P., Colaert, J., Melin, P. & Verhaegen, J. ( 2005; ). Susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by the Vitek 2 system: a comparison with E-test results. Acta Clin Belg 60, 3–9.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sanders, C. C., Peyret, M., Smith Moland, E., Shubert, C., Thomson, K. S., Boeufgras, J. M. & Sanders, W. E., Jr ( 2000; ). Ability of the VITEK 2 Advanced Expert System to identify β-lactam phenotypes in isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol 38, 570–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stager, C. E. & Davis, J. R. ( 1992; ). Automated systems for the identification of microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 5, 302–327.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Steward, C. D., Mohammed, J. M., Swenson, J. M., Stocker, S. A., Williams, P. P., Gaynes, R. P., McGowan, J. E., Jr & Tenover, F. C. ( 2003; ). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of carbapenems: multicenter validity testing and accuracy levels of five antimicrobial test methods for detecting resistance in Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. J Clin Microbiol 41, 351–358.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.005587-0
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.005587-0
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error