Detecting imipenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii by automated systems (BD Phoenix, Microscan WalkAway, Vitek 2); high error rates with Microscan WalkAway

Background: Increasing reports of carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections are of serious concern. Reliable susceptibility testing results remains a critical issue for the clinical outcome. Automated systems are increasingly used for species identification and susceptibility testing. This study was organized to evaluate the accuracies of three widely used automated susceptibility testing methods for testing the imipenem susceptibilities of A. baumannii isolates, by comparing to the validated test methods. Methods: Selected 112 clinical isolates of A. baumanii collected between January 2003 and May 2006 were tested to confirm imipenem susceptibility results. Strains were tested against imipenem by the reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD), Etest, BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway and Vitek 2 automated systems. Data were analysed by comparing the results from each test method to those produced by the reference BMD test. Results: MicroScan performed true identification of all A. baumannii strains while Vitek 2 unidentified one strain, Phoenix unidentified two strains and misidentified two strains. Eighty seven of the strains (78%) were resistant to imipenem by BMD. Etest, Vitek 2 and BD Phoenix produced acceptable error rates when tested against imipenem. Etest showed the best performance with only two minor errors (1.8%). Vitek 2 produced eight minor errors(7.2%). BD Phoenix produced three major errors (2.8%). DD produced two very major errors (1.8%) (slightly higher (0.3%) than the acceptable limit) and three major errors (2.7%). MicroScan showed the worst performance in susceptibility testing with unacceptable error rates; 28 very major (25%) and 50 minor errors (44.6%). Conclusion: Reporting errors for A. baumannii against imipenem do exist in susceptibility testing systems. We suggest clinical laboratories using MicroScan system for routine use should consider using a second, independent antimicrobial susceptibility testing method to validate imipenem susceptibility. Etest, whereever available, may be used as an easy method to confirm imipenem susceptibility. © 2009 Kulah et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Yazar Kulah C.
Aktas E.
Comert F.
Ozlu N.
Akyar I.
Ankarali H.
Yayın Türü Article
Tek Biçim Adres https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12628/5024
Tek Biçim Adres 10.1186/1471-2334-9-30
Koleksiyonlar Araştırma Çıktıları | WoS | Scopus | TR-Dizin | PubMed | SOBİAD
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Dergi Adı BMC Infectious Diseases
Dergi Cilt Bilgisi 9
Sayfalar -
Yayın Yılı 2009
Eser Adı
[dc.title]
Detecting imipenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii by automated systems (BD Phoenix, Microscan WalkAway, Vitek 2); high error rates with Microscan WalkAway
Yazar
[dc.contributor.author]
Kulah C.
Yazar
[dc.contributor.author]
Aktas E.
Yazar
[dc.contributor.author]
Comert F.
Yazar
[dc.contributor.author]
Ozlu N.
Yazar
[dc.contributor.author]
Akyar I.
Yazar
[dc.contributor.author]
Ankarali H.
Yayın Yılı
[dc.date.issued]
2009
Yayın Türü
[dc.type]
article
Özet
[dc.description.abstract]
Background: Increasing reports of carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections are of serious concern. Reliable susceptibility testing results remains a critical issue for the clinical outcome. Automated systems are increasingly used for species identification and susceptibility testing. This study was organized to evaluate the accuracies of three widely used automated susceptibility testing methods for testing the imipenem susceptibilities of A. baumannii isolates, by comparing to the validated test methods. Methods: Selected 112 clinical isolates of A. baumanii collected between January 2003 and May 2006 were tested to confirm imipenem susceptibility results. Strains were tested against imipenem by the reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD), Etest, BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway and Vitek 2 automated systems. Data were analysed by comparing the results from each test method to those produced by the reference BMD test. Results: MicroScan performed true identification of all A. baumannii strains while Vitek 2 unidentified one strain, Phoenix unidentified two strains and misidentified two strains. Eighty seven of the strains (78%) were resistant to imipenem by BMD. Etest, Vitek 2 and BD Phoenix produced acceptable error rates when tested against imipenem. Etest showed the best performance with only two minor errors (1.8%). Vitek 2 produced eight minor errors(7.2%). BD Phoenix produced three major errors (2.8%). DD produced two very major errors (1.8%) (slightly higher (0.3%) than the acceptable limit) and three major errors (2.7%). MicroScan showed the worst performance in susceptibility testing with unacceptable error rates; 28 very major (25%) and 50 minor errors (44.6%). Conclusion: Reporting errors for A. baumannii against imipenem do exist in susceptibility testing systems. We suggest clinical laboratories using MicroScan system for routine use should consider using a second, independent antimicrobial susceptibility testing method to validate imipenem susceptibility. Etest, whereever available, may be used as an easy method to confirm imipenem susceptibility. © 2009 Kulah et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Kayıt Giriş Tarihi
[dc.date.accessioned]
2019-12-23
Açık Erişim Tarihi
[dc.date.available]
2019-12-23
Yayın Dili
[dc.language.iso]
eng
Haklar
[dc.rights]
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
ISSN
[dc.identifier.issn]
1471-2334
Dergi Adı
[dc.relation.journal]
BMC Infectious Diseases
Dergi Cilt Bilgisi
[dc.identifier.volume]
9
Tek Biçim Adres
[dc.identifier.uri]
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-9-30
Tek Biçim Adres
[dc.identifier.uri]
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12628/5024
Görüntülenme Sayısı ( Şehir )
Görüntülenme Sayısı ( Ülke )
Görüntülenme Sayısı ( Zaman Dağılımı )
Görüntülenme
17
09.12.2022 tarihinden bu yana
İndirme
1
09.12.2022 tarihinden bu yana
Son Erişim Tarihi
09 Şubat 2024 08:57
Google Kontrol
Tıklayınız
susceptibility imipenem testing errors produced strains Phoenix MicroScan baumannii against tested method systems clinical results isolates comparing methods confirm performance automated identification unidentified reference acceptable resistant showed (slightly limit) higher errors(7 Background unacceptable available validate
6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu kapsamında yükümlülüklerimiz ve çerez politikamız hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak için alttaki bağlantıyı kullanabilirsiniz.

creativecommons
Bu site altında yer alan tüm kaynaklar Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.
Platforms