Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
About us
Aims and Scope
Indexing and Abstracting
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licensing
Publication Fees
Fast-Track Paper Publication Option
Conflict Interest Guidance
Submit an Article
Special Issues
News & Editorials
“Fake,” “Predatory,” and “Pseudo” Journals: Charlatans Threatening Trust in Science
Shifting the Journal submission-review system to the Editorial System Manuscript December 27, 2017.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison of Carbapenem Resistance Detected by the BD Phoenix Automated System in Enterobacteriaceae Isolates with E-Test Method
1
Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Department, Medical Faculty Hospital, Harran University, Sanliurfa, TURKEY
2
Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Department, Medical Faculty, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, TURKEY
3
Medical Microbiology Department, Medical Faculty, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, TURKEY
4
Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Department, Batman Training and Research Hospital, Batman, TURKEY
5
Medical Microbiology Department, Mengucek Gazi Training and Research Hospital, Erzincan University, Erzincan, TURKEY
Publication date: 2022-02-02
Electron J Gen Med 2022;19(3):em362
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Objective:
Automatic identification and antimicrobial susceptibility systems are frequently used to identify clinical isolates in hospitalized patients, but mistakes in these systems can lead to potentially devastating treatment failures for patients. Therefore, the ‘‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’’ recommends confirming all Carbapenem-resistant and low-susceptibility isolates with a different method. The aim of this study is to compare the Carbapenem susceptibility results of isolates reported as Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae according to the BD Phoenix 100 automated system with the E-test method.
Material and Methods:
The study included 70 strains of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae members which were isolated and grown from several types of clinical samples in the Medical Microbiology Laboratory. Conventional methods (Gram stain, negative oxidase test) and the BD Phoenix 100 automated system were used to identify the isolates. The susceptibility of all strains to imipenem, ertapenem and meropenem was investigated by E-test method. Automated system results and E-test results were compared.
Results:
The frequency distribution of all isolated bacterial strains comprised K. pneumoniae in 56 (80%) of the samples included in the study. The automated system test results were correlated with the results of the E-test at a rate of 96.1 % for the imipenem-resistant strains, 84.3% for the meropenem-resistant strains, 84.1% for the ertapenem-resistant strains
Conclusions:
Automated systems are frequently used in microbiology laboratories to identify isolates. However, automated systems can show a high error rate against some antimicrobials. For this reason, comparing the results of automated system test results with tests such as E-test is very important to prevent both treatment failures and inappropriate antibiotic use that may occur on a patient basis.
Automatic identification and antimicrobial susceptibility systems are frequently used to identify clinical isolates in hospitalized patients, but mistakes in these systems can lead to potentially devastating treatment failures for patients. Therefore, the ‘‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’’ recommends confirming all Carbapenem-resistant and low-susceptibility isolates with a different method. The aim of this study is to compare the Carbapenem susceptibility results of isolates reported as Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae according to the BD Phoenix 100 automated system with the E-test method.
Material and Methods:
The study included 70 strains of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae members which were isolated and grown from several types of clinical samples in the Medical Microbiology Laboratory. Conventional methods (Gram stain, negative oxidase test) and the BD Phoenix 100 automated system were used to identify the isolates. The susceptibility of all strains to imipenem, ertapenem and meropenem was investigated by E-test method. Automated system results and E-test results were compared.
Results:
The frequency distribution of all isolated bacterial strains comprised K. pneumoniae in 56 (80%) of the samples included in the study. The automated system test results were correlated with the results of the E-test at a rate of 96.1 % for the imipenem-resistant strains, 84.3% for the meropenem-resistant strains, 84.1% for the ertapenem-resistant strains
Conclusions:
Automated systems are frequently used in microbiology laboratories to identify isolates. However, automated systems can show a high error rate against some antimicrobials. For this reason, comparing the results of automated system test results with tests such as E-test is very important to prevent both treatment failures and inappropriate antibiotic use that may occur on a patient basis.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Bilgehan H. Enterobactericeae. Klinik mikrobiyolojik tanı [Enterobacteriaceae. Clinical microbiological diagnosis]. Izmir: Baris Yayinlari Fakulteler Kitabevi [Baris Publications Faculties Bookstore]; 2000. 102 p.
2.
Toreci K. Enterobacteriaceae genel özellikleri [General characteristics of Enterobacteriaceae]. In: Willke Topcu A, Soyletir G, Doganay M (eds). İnfeksiyon hastalıkları ve mikrobiyolojisi [Infectious diseases and microbiology]. Istanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri [Nobel Medical Bookstores]; 2002. p. 1555.
3.
Bradford PA. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in the 21st century: Characterization, epidemiology and detection of this important resistance threat. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14(4):933-51. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.14... PMid:11585791 PMCid:PMC89009.
4.
Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. Carbapenems: Past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55(11):4943-60. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00... PMid:21859938 PMCid:PMC3195018.
5.
Nordmann P, Gniadkowski M, Giske CG, Poirel L, Woodford N, Miriagou V. Identification and screening of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(5):432-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469....
6.
Gupta N, Limbago BM, Patel JB, Kallen AJ. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: Epidemiology and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(1):60-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ci... PMid:21653305.
7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for control of infections with Carbapenem-resistant or Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in acute care facilities. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(10):256-60.
8.
Yildirim A. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) araştırma yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması: E.coli ve Klebsiella spp. suşlarında sıklığının saptanması [Comparison of extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) research methods: E.coli and Klebsiella spp. Determination of the frequency in strains]. Uzmanlık tezi, Gülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi [[Specialization thesis, Gulhane Military Medical Academy]], Istanbul, 1999.
9.
Espinol-Ingroff A, Pfaller M, Erwin ME, et al. Interlaboratory evaluation of Etest method for testing antifungal susceptibilities of pathogenic yeasts to five antifungal agents by using Casitone agar and solidified RPMI 1640 medium with 2% glucose. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34(4):848-52. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.34... PMid:8815095.
10.
Petrosillo N, Capone A, Di Bella S, Taglietti F. Management of antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit setting. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010;8:289-302. https://doi.org/10.1586/eri.10... PMid:20192683.
11.
Livermore DM. Current epidemiology and growing resistance of Gram negative pathogens. Korean J Intern Med. 2012;27(2):128-42. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2... PMid:22707882 PMCid:PMC3372794.
12.
Giani T, Pini B, Arena F, et al. Epidemic diffusion of KPC Carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Italy: results of the first countrywide survey, 15 May to 30 June 2011. Euro Surveill. 2013;18(22):20489. https://doi.org/10.2807/ese.18... PMid:23787077.
13.
Oteo J, Saez D, Bautista V, et al. Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(12):6344-7. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01... PMid:24041898 PMCid:PMC3837857.
14.
Us E, Kutlu HH, Tekeli A. Karbapenemaz üreticisi Enterobacteriaceae izolatlarının saptanmasında modifiye Hodge testi ile inhibitör tabanlı testlerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of modified Hodge test and inhibitor-based tests for the detection of Carbapenemase producer Enterobacteriaceae isolates.]. J Ankara Univ Fac Med. 2016;69(3):151-8. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tipfak....
15.
Cayci YT, Biyıik I, Cinar C, Birinci A. Karbapeneme dirençli Enterobacteriaceae izolatlarının 2015-2018 yılları arasındaki antibiyotik direnci [Antibiotic resistance of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolates between 2015 and 2018]. Turk Mikrobiyol Cemiy Derg. 2020;50:134-40. https://doi.org/10.5222/TMCD.2....
16.
Yilmaz N, Kose S, Agus N, Ece G, Akkoclu G, Kirakli C. Yoğun bakım ünitesinde yatan hastaların kan kültürlerinde üreyen mikroorganizmalar, antibiyotik duyaklılıkları ve nozokomiyal bakteriyemi etkenleri [Microorganisms grown in blood cultures of patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, antibiotic susceptibility and nosocomial bacteremia agents]. Ankem Derg. 2010;24(1):12-9.
17.
Nair PK, Vaz MS. Carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae from a tertiary hospital. J Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;3(4):207-10. https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs....
18.
Kutlu HH. Çeşitli klinik örneklerden izole edilen Gram negatif enterik bakterilerde karbapenemaz varlığının ve tiplerinin araştırılması [Investigation of the presence and types of Carbapenemases in Gram-negative enteric bacteria isolated from various clinical specimensı]. Uzmanlık tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi [Specialization thesis, Ankara University]. Ankara, 2016.
19.
Haffler ZJ, Kulengowski B, Ribes JA, Burgess DS. Evaluation of the BD Phoenix automated system for determining antimicrobial susceptibility against Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae compared with broth micro dilution. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;54(2):249-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijan... PMid:31071467.
20.
Giani T, Morosini MI, D’Andrea MM, Garcia Castillo M, Rossolini GM, Canton R. Assessment of the Phoenix™ automated system and EUCAST breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing against isolates expressing clinically relevant resistance mechanisms. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:E452-E8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469... PMid:22909279.
21.
Miriagou V, Cornaglia G, Edelstein M, et al. Acquired Carbapenemases in Gram-negative bacterial patogens: Detection and surveillance issues. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16:112-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469... PMid:20085605.
22.
Baker CN, Stocker SA, Culver DM, et al. Comparison of e-test to agar dilution, broth microdilution and agar difusion susceptibity testing techniques by using a special challenge set of bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29:533-8. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.29... PMid:2037671 PMCid:PMC269813.
23.
Anderson KF, Lonsway DR, Rasheed JK, et al. Evaluation of methods to identify the Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase in Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:2723-5. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00... PMid:17581941 PMCid:PMC1951220.
24.
Kocoglu ME, Davarci I, Guney R, Tascilar M, Zengi̇n F, Samasti M. Comparison of conventional methods and automated systems for determining antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria isolated from urine culture. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2019;18(3):519-26. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v....
25.
Bulik CC, Fauntleroy KA, Jenkins SG, et al. Comparison of meropenem MICs and susceptibilities for Carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates by various testing methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(7):2402-6. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00... PMid:20484603 PMCid:PMC2897473.
26.
Lee M, Chung HS. Different antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods to detect ertapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: VITEK2, MicroScan, Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution. J Microbiol Methods. 2015;112:87-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mime... PMid:25794901.
27.
Sahin K, Tekin A, Ozdas S, et al. Evaluation of Carbapenem resistance using phenotypic and genotypic techniques in Enterobacteriaceae isolates. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2015;14(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941... PMid:26444537 PMCid:PMC4596540.
28.
Sun J, Xu Y, Yu Y, Ni Y. Accuracy of in vitro susceptibility tests for Carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. J Med Microbiol. 2015;64(6):620-2. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.... PMid:25873580.
| eISSN: | 2516-3507 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
