Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Aug;43(8):3829-34.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.8.3829-3834.2005.

Analysis of the comparative workflow and performance characteristics of the VITEK 2 and Phoenix systems

U Eigner  1 , A Schmid, U Wild, D Bertsch, A-M Fahr
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Analysis of the comparative workflow and performance characteristics of the VITEK 2 and Phoenix systems

U Eigner et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Aug.

Abstract

The VITEK 2 (bioMérieux, Marcy L'Etoile, France) and the Phoenix systems (BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, Md.) are automated instruments for rapid organism identification and susceptibility testing. We evaluated the workflow, the time to result, and the performance of identification and susceptibility testing of both instruments. A total of 307 fresh clinical isolates were tested: 141 Enterobacteriaceae, 22 nonfermenters, 93 Staphylococcus spp., and 51 Enterococcus spp. Manipulation time was measured in batches, each with seven isolates, for a total of 39 batches. The mean (+/- standard deviation [SD]) manipulation time per batch was 20.9 +/- 1.8 min for Phoenix and 10.6 +/- 1.0 min for VITEK 2 (P < 0.001). Mean (+/-SD) time to result for all bacterial groups was 727 +/- 162 min for Phoenix and 506 +/- 120 min for VITEK 2 (P < 0.001). Concerning identification, Phoenix and VITEK 2 yielded the same results for nonfermenters (100%), staphylococci (97%), and enterococci (100%). For 140 Enterobacteriaceae strains evaluated, 135 (96%) were correctly identified by Phoenix and 137 (98%) by VITEK 2 (P = 0.72). The overall category agreement for all isolates was 97.0% for both instruments. The minor error rate, major error rate, and very major error rate for all bacterial isolates tested were 3.0, 0.3, and 0.6 and 2.8, 0.2, and 1.7 for Phoenix and VITEK 2, respectively (P values of 0.76, 0.75, and 0.09). The VITEK 2 system required less manual manipulation time and less time than the Phoenix system to yield results.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abele-Horn, M., S. Suerbaum, and M. Frosch. 2002. Evaluierung des VITEK 2 in der Routinediagnostik. Mikrobiologe 12:203-215.
    1. Barenfanger, J., C. Drake, and G. Kacich. 1999. Clinical and financial benefit of rapid bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:1415-1418. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barenfanger, J., M. A. Short, and A. A. Groesch. 2001. Improved antimicrobial interventions have benefits. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:2823-2828. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Center for Devices and Radiological Health 2000. Guidelines on review criteria for assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility devices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.
    1. Doern, G., R. Vautour, M. Gaudet, and B. Levy. 1994. Clinical impact of rapid in vitro susceptibility testing and bacterial identification. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32:1757-1762. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources