| Literature DB >> 26709258 |
Sung Jin Jo1, Kang Gyun Park1, Kyungja Han1, Dong Jin Park1, Yeon-Joon Park2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the reliability and accuracy of the combined use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) bacterial identification and Vitek 2 antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for bacteria from positive blood culture bottles.Entities:
Keywords: Direct identification; MALDI-TOF MS; Positive blood culture; Vitek 2; Vitek MS
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26709258 PMCID: PMC4713844 DOI: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.2.117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Lab Med ISSN: 2234-3806 Impact factor: 3.464
Comparison of identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing results between the direct method and the standard method
| Microorganism | N of isolates | N of correct identifications | Antimicrobial susceptibility test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N of antimicrobials tested | Agreement | Minor error | Major error | Very major error | |||
| | 36 | 34 | 357 | 354 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| | 23 | 18 | 289 | 272 | 15 | 0 | 2 |
| | 12 | 9 | 34 | 32 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| | 8 | 5 | 136 | 133 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| | 4 | 4 | 34 | 33 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | |||||
| | 23 | 21 | 144 | 143 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 6 | 5 | 60 | 57 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| | 8 | 3 | |||||
| | 2 | 0 | |||||
| | 2 | 0 | |||||
| | 2 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 1 | |||||
| | 3 | 1 | |||||
| | 1 | 1 | |||||
| | 4 | 3 | |||||
| | 2 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 53 | 53 | 522 | 518 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| | 14 | 13 | 162 | 160 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| | 3 | 3 | |||||
| | 4 | 4 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 3 | 3 | 36 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 3 | 3 | 36 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | 18 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 1 | 17 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| | 10 | 10 | 56 | 53 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| | 2 | 0 | 32 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 2 | 2 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 3 | 1 | |||||
| | 1 | 0 | |||||
| | 1 | 1 | |||||
| | 2 | 2 | |||||
| | 2 | 2 | |||||
| | 1 | 1 | |||||
Identification rates according to the type of blood culture bottle
| Adult patients (N = 235) | Pediatric patients (N = 19) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Aerobic | Anaerobic | Pediatric bottle | |
| Correct identification | 81.8% (149/182) | 87.6% (127/145) | 57.9% (11/19) |
| Gram-positive | 76.2% (77/101) | 77.4% (55/71) | 53.3% (8/15) |
| Gram-negative | 88.8% (72/81) | 97.3% (72/74) | 75% (3/4) |
| No identification | 18.1% (33/182) | 11.7% (17/145) | 42.1% (8/19) |
| Misidentification | - | 0.7% (1/145) | |
| No growth | 22.6% (53/235) | 38.3% (90/235) | |
Identification results between aerobic and anaerobic bottles were not different statistically.
Microorganism/antimicrobial agent combinations showing discrepancy between the results by the direct method and those by the standard method in antimicrobial susceptibility test by Vitek 2
| Microorganism | N of antibiotics showing discrepancy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Very major error (5) | Major error (1) | Minor error (36) | |
| Gentamicin (2) | Erythromycin (1) | ||
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (2) | Fusidic acid (7) | ||
| Gentamicin (4) | |||
| Ciprofloxacin (2) | |||
| Teicoplanin (2) | |||
| Gentamicin (1) | Gentamicin (1) | ||
| Fusidic acid (1) | |||
| Gentamicin (1) | |||
| Ciprofloxacin (1) | |||
| Erythromycin (1) | |||
| Ampicillin/sulbactam (1) | |||
| Erythromycin (1) | Erythromycin (2) | ||
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (2), Piperacillin/tazobactam (1) | |||
| Cefepime (1) | |||
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (1) | |||
| Ertapenem (1) | |||
| Piperacillin/tazobactam (1) | |||
| Imipenem (1) | |||
| Tigecycline (1) | |||
| Amikacin (1) | |||
| Cefepime (1) | |||
| Aztreonam (1) | |||