Performance of Vitek 2 for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp.

被引:59
作者
Bobenchik, April M. [1 ]
Hindler, Janet A. [2 ]
Giltner, Carmen L. [1 ]
Saeki, Sandra [2 ]
Humphries, Romney M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[2] UCLA Hlth Syst, Los Angeles, CA USA
关键词
INDUCIBLE CLINDAMYCIN RESISTANCE; BD PHOENIX; AUREUS; DAPTOMYCIN; PREVALENCE; FAECIUM; EVOLUTION; COMMUNITY; ACCURACY; FAILURE;
D O I
10.1128/JCM.02432-13
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Vitek 2 (bioMerieux, Inc., Durham, NC) is a widely used commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing system. We compared MIC results obtained by Vitek 2 to those obtained by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for 134 staphylococcal and 84 enterococcal clinical isolates. Nineteen agents were evaluated, including all those available on Vitek 2 for testing staphylococci and enterococci. The resistance phenotypes tested included methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (n = 58), S. aureus with inducible clindamycin resistance (ICR) (n = 30), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-resistant MRSA (n = 10), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (n = 37), high-level gentamicin-resistant Enterococcus (n = 15), linezolid-resistant Enterococcus (n = 5), and daptomycin-nonsusceptible Enterococcus faecalis (n = 6). For the staphylococci, there was 98.9% categorical agreement (CA). There was one very major error (VME) for gentamicin in a Staphylococcus hominis isolate, six VMEs for inducible clindamycin in S. aureus isolates, and two major errors (ME) for daptomycin in an S. aureus and a Staphylococcus epidermidis isolate. For enterococci, there was 97.3% CA. Two VMEs were observed for daptomycin in isolates of E. faecalis and 2 ME, 1 for high-level gentamicin resistance and 1 for nitrofurantoin, in E. faecium isolates. Overall, there was 98.3% CA and 99% essential agreement for the testing of staphylococci and enterococci by the Vitek 2. With the exception of detecting ICR in S. aureus, Vitek 2 performed reliably for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of staphylococci and enterococci.
引用
收藏
页码:392 / 397
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, WAYNE PENNSYLVANIA C
[2]  
bioMerieux, 2013, VITEK 2 AST GP71 PRO
[3]  
bioMerieux, 2013, VITEK 2 AST GP72 PRO
[4]   Susceptibility of enterococci to daptomycin is dependent upon testing methodology [J].
Bryant, Kendall A. ;
Roberts, Amity L. ;
Rupp, Mark E. ;
Anderson, James R. ;
Lyden, Elizabeth R. ;
Fey, Paul D. ;
Van Schooneveld, Trevor C. .
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2013, 76 (04) :497-501
[5]   Comparison of BD Phoenix and bioMerieux Vitek 2 automated systems for the detection of macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance among clinical isolates of Staphylococcus [J].
Buchan, Blake W. ;
Anderson, Neil W. ;
Ledeboer, Nathan A. .
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2012, 72 (03) :291-294
[6]  
Clark RB., 2009, Cumitech 31A, Verification and validation of procedures in the clinical microbiology laboratory
[7]   Clindamycin treatment of Staphylococcus aureus expressing inducible clindamycin resistance [J].
Drinkovic, D ;
Fuller, ER ;
Shore, KP ;
Holland, DJ ;
Ellis-Pegler, R .
JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2001, 48 (02) :315-316
[8]   Analysis of the comparative workflow and performance characteristics of the VITEK 2 and Phoenix systems [J].
Eigner, U ;
Schmid, A ;
Wild, U ;
Bertsch, D ;
Fahr, AM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2005, 43 (08) :3829-3834
[9]   Prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance in macrolide-resistant Staphylococcus spp. [J].
Fokas, S ;
Fokas, S ;
Tsironi, M ;
Kalkani, M ;
Dionysopouloy, M .
CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2005, 11 (04) :337-340
[10]   Clindamycin treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in children [J].
Frank, AL ;
Marcinak, JF ;
Mangat, PD ;
Tjhio, JT ;
Kelkar, S ;
Schreckenberger, PC ;
Quinn, JP .
PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL, 2002, 21 (06) :530-534