Comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoints for beta-Lactams in Enterobacteriaceae Producing Extended-Spectrum beta-Lactamases and/or Plasmid-Mediated AmpC beta-Lacta

W. Song, Min-Jeong Park, H. Kim, Jae Seok Kim, H. S. Kim, K. Lee
{"title":"Comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Breakpoints for beta-Lactams in Enterobacteriaceae Producing Extended-Spectrum beta-Lactamases and/or Plasmid-Mediated AmpC beta-Lacta","authors":"W. Song, Min-Jeong Park, H. Kim, Jae Seok Kim, H. S. Kim, K. Lee","doi":"10.5145/KJCM.2011.14.1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Results: Among the 94 isolates containing ESBL and/ or PABL, the number of isolates that were susceptible to cefotaxime, ceftazidime, aztreonam, cefepime, and imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 vs. the EUCAST breakpoints were 4 (4.3%) vs. 4 (4.3%); 26 (27.7%) vs. 8 (8.5%); 37 (39.4%) vs. 14 (14.9%); 71 (75.5%) vs. 31 (33.0%); and 76 (80.9%) vs. 90 (95.7%), respectively. Of the 18 isolates that were not susceptible to imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 breakpoints, 13 isolates (72.2%) were P. mirabilis. Conclusion: The CLSI 2010 MIC breakpoints without tests to detect ESBL and/or PABL for Enterobacteriaceae could be unreliable. Thus, special tests for ESBLs and AmpC β-lactamases are required to detect the resistance mechanisms involved. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2011;14:24-29)","PeriodicalId":143093,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2011.14.1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Results: Among the 94 isolates containing ESBL and/ or PABL, the number of isolates that were susceptible to cefotaxime, ceftazidime, aztreonam, cefepime, and imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 vs. the EUCAST breakpoints were 4 (4.3%) vs. 4 (4.3%); 26 (27.7%) vs. 8 (8.5%); 37 (39.4%) vs. 14 (14.9%); 71 (75.5%) vs. 31 (33.0%); and 76 (80.9%) vs. 90 (95.7%), respectively. Of the 18 isolates that were not susceptible to imipenem according to the CLSI 2010 breakpoints, 13 isolates (72.2%) were P. mirabilis. Conclusion: The CLSI 2010 MIC breakpoints without tests to detect ESBL and/or PABL for Enterobacteriaceae could be unreliable. Thus, special tests for ESBLs and AmpC β-lactamases are required to detect the resistance mechanisms involved. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2011;14:24-29)
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床和实验室标准协会和欧洲抗菌药物敏感性测试委员会在产生广谱β -内酰胺酶和/或质粒介导的AmpC β -内酰胺的肠杆菌科细菌中β -内酰胺的断点的比较
结果:在94株含有ESBL和/或PABL的分离株中,根据CLSI 2010和EUCAST的breakpoints,对头孢噻肟、头孢他啶、唑曲南、头孢吡肟和亚胺培南敏感的分离株数分别为4株(4.3%)和4株(4.3%);26(27.7%)对8 (8.5%);37 (39.4%) vs. 14 (14.9%);71人(75.5%)vs. 31人(33.0%);76(80.9%)对90(95.7%)。根据CLSI 2010断点,18株对亚胺培南不敏感的分离株中,13株(72.2%)为奇异假单胞菌。结论:没有检测肠杆菌科ESBL和/或PABL的CLSI 2010 MIC断点可能不可靠。因此,需要对ESBLs和AmpC β-内酰胺酶进行特殊检测,以检测所涉及的耐药机制。(韩国临床微生物学杂志2011;14:24-29)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity of Integrons Carrying blaVIM-2 Cassette in Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. A Case of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Caused by Arcanobacterium haemolyticum and Streptococcus agalactiae Haemophilus parainfluenzae Infective Endocarditis Confirmed by 16S rRNA Sequence Analysis from Culture Negative Tissue An Unusual Feature of Malaria: Exflagellated Microgametes of Malarial Parasites in Human Peripheral Blood Lung Abscess and Bacteremia Caused by Neisseria flavescens and Streptococcus sanguis in Patient with Idiopathic Hypereosinophilic Syndrome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1