11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Evaluation of the Etest ESBL and the BD Phoenix, VITEK 1, and VITEK 2 automated instruments for detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in multiresistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Seventy-four isolates of multiresistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. recovered during a 3-year period and 17 control strains with genotypically identified beta-lactamases were tested for the production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) by using the Etest and the VITEK 1, VITEK 2, and Phoenix automated instruments. The use of the Etest was evaluated by investigating its accuracy in detecting the ESBLs of the control strains and by comparing interpretation results of laboratory technicians and experts. The accuracy of the Etest was 94%. With the Etest as the reference for the clinical strains and the genotype as the reference for the control strains, the automated instruments detected the ESBLs with accuracies of 78% (VITEK 2), 83% (VITEK 1), and 89% (Phoenix). No significant difference between the systems with regard to the control strains was detected. The VITEK 2 did, however, perform less well than the Phoenix (P = 0.03) on the collection of clinical isolates, mainly because of its high percentage of indeterminate test results (11%). No significant difference between the performances of the VITEK 1 and either the VITEK 2 or the Phoenix was found. However, because of its associated BDXpert system the Phoenix showed the best performance. The Etest was found to be an accurate test but was limited by its indeterminate results (4%), its inability to differentiate between K1 hyperproduction and ESBLs, questionable guidelines concerning mutants inside the inhibition zones, and the inability of the technicians to recognize subtle zone deformations.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Clin Microbiol
          Journal of clinical microbiology
          American Society for Microbiology
          0095-1137
          0095-1137
          Oct 2002
          : 40
          : 10
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Eijkman-Winkler Institute for Microbiology, Infectious Diseases & Inflammation, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room G04.614, PO Box 85000, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.LeversteinvHall@lab.azu.nl
          Article
          10.1128/JCM.40.10.3703-3711.2002
          130880
          12354869
          88061dba-2355-4afc-a445-5b519b468b10
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article