Detecting imipenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii by automated systems (BD Phoenix, Microscan WalkAway, Vitek 2); high error rates with Microscan WalkAway
- PMID: 19291298
- PMCID: PMC2664816
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-30
Detecting imipenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii by automated systems (BD Phoenix, Microscan WalkAway, Vitek 2); high error rates with Microscan WalkAway
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.
Similar articles
-
[Shall we report the carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii strains detected by BD Phoenix system?].Mikrobiyol Bul. 2010 Apr;44(2):197-202. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2010. PMID: 20549953 Turkish.
-
Accuracies of beta-lactam susceptibility test results for Pseudomonas aeruginosa with four automated systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2).J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Apr;45(4):1339-42. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01716-06. Epub 2007 Jan 17. J Clin Microbiol. 2007. PMID: 17229867 Free PMC article.
-
Carbapenem susceptibility testing errors using three automated systems, disk diffusion, Etest, and broth microdilution and carbapenem resistance genes in isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex.Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011 Oct;55(10):4707-11. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00112-11. Epub 2011 Aug 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011. PMID: 21807971 Free PMC article.
-
Expert systems in clinical microbiology.Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Jul;24(3):515-56. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00061-10. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011. PMID: 21734247 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Contemporary Considerations for Establishing Reference Methods for Antibacterial Susceptibility Testing.J Clin Microbiol. 2023 Jun 20;61(6):e0188622. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01886-22. Epub 2023 Mar 27. J Clin Microbiol. 2023. PMID: 36971571 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Phenotypic and molecular characteristics of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in a health care system in Los Angeles, California, from 2011 to 2013.J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Nov;52(11):4003-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01397-14. Epub 2014 Sep 10. J Clin Microbiol. 2014. PMID: 25210072 Free PMC article.
-
Acinetobacter baumannii as a community foodborne pathogen: Peptide mass fingerprinting analysis, genotypic of biofilm formation and phenotypic pattern of antimicrobial resistance.Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021 Jan;28(1):1158-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.11.052. Epub 2020 Nov 21. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021. PMID: 33424412 Free PMC article.
-
In vivo selection of a missense mutation in adeR and conversion of the novel blaOXA-164 gene into blaOXA-58 in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from a hospitalized patient.Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Dec;54(12):5021-7. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00598-10. Epub 2010 Oct 4. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010. PMID: 20921306 Free PMC article.
-
Role of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry for Species Identification of Acinetobacter Strains.J Lab Physicians. 2023 Jan 18;15(3):336-343. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1760401. eCollection 2023 Sep. J Lab Physicians. 2023. PMID: 37564221 Free PMC article.
-
A new double digestion ligation mediated suppression PCR method for simultaneous bacteria DNA-typing and confirmation of species: an Acinetobacter sp. model.PLoS One. 2014 Dec 18;9(12):e115181. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115181. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25522278 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Bou G, Cervero G, Dominguez MA, Quereda C, Martinez-Beltran J. PCR-based DNA fingerprinting (REP-PCR, AP-PCR) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis characterization of a nosocomial outbreak caused by imipenem- and meropenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2000;6(12):635–43. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2000.00181.x. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical