Comparison of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of flash positive blood culture bottles using disk diffusion and automated broth microdilution on VITEK 2 compact with standard methods: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocol

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmmb.2025.100809
Prerna S. Salian , Dhruti Sheth , Anurag K. Bari , Aruna Poojary , Seema Rohra , Minipriyaa R
{"title":"Comparison of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of flash positive blood culture bottles using disk diffusion and automated broth microdilution on VITEK 2 compact with standard methods: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocol","authors":"Prerna S. Salian ,&nbsp;Dhruti Sheth ,&nbsp;Anurag K. Bari ,&nbsp;Aruna Poojary ,&nbsp;Seema Rohra ,&nbsp;Minipriyaa R","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmmb.2025.100809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Sepsis requires prompt diagnosis for effective management. Standard Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) is time-consuming, highlighting the need for Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST) to provide reports earlier.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the results of RAST and AST in order to determine the feasibility and reliability of RAST.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A study at a tertiary care facility analyzed 95 positive blood culture isolates. RAST was performed by Disk Diffusion (DD) and VITEK 2 Compact Automated Broth Microdilution (BMD) from flagged positive broth. In contrast, AST was performed by DD and BMD from isolated colonies.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 95 Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), <em>E. coli</em> (n = 40), and <em>K. pneumoniae</em> (n = 19) were most common. RAST vs AST DD for GNB showed 91 % Categorical agreement (CA) with an overall Very Major Error (VME) and Major Error (ME) rates of 0.7 % &amp; 2.2 % and respectively. For GNB, RAST vs. AST BMD demonstrated a CA of 97 % and Essential Agreement (EA) of 97.7 %, with VME and ME rates of 1.7 % (excluding <em>E.coli</em> + Cefepime drug bug pairs) and 0.1 % respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>These findings suggest that RAST is a reliable antimicrobial susceptibility tool for GNB from direct Blood Culture broths. RAST can support early initiation of targeted antimicrobial therapy in patients with sepsis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13284,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology","volume":"54 ","pages":"Article 100809"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0255085725000222","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Sepsis requires prompt diagnosis for effective management. Standard Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) is time-consuming, highlighting the need for Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (RAST) to provide reports earlier.

Purpose

To compare the results of RAST and AST in order to determine the feasibility and reliability of RAST.

Materials and methods

A study at a tertiary care facility analyzed 95 positive blood culture isolates. RAST was performed by Disk Diffusion (DD) and VITEK 2 Compact Automated Broth Microdilution (BMD) from flagged positive broth. In contrast, AST was performed by DD and BMD from isolated colonies.

Results

Among 95 Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), E. coli (n = 40), and K. pneumoniae (n = 19) were most common. RAST vs AST DD for GNB showed 91 % Categorical agreement (CA) with an overall Very Major Error (VME) and Major Error (ME) rates of 0.7 % & 2.2 % and respectively. For GNB, RAST vs. AST BMD demonstrated a CA of 97 % and Essential Agreement (EA) of 97.7 %, with VME and ME rates of 1.7 % (excluding E.coli + Cefepime drug bug pairs) and 0.1 % respectively.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that RAST is a reliable antimicrobial susceptibility tool for GNB from direct Blood Culture broths. RAST can support early initiation of targeted antimicrobial therapy in patients with sepsis.
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
在 VITEK 2 Compact 上使用碟片扩散法和自动肉汤微量稀释法对闪阳血培养瓶进行快速抗菌药物敏感性测试与标准方法的比较:临床实验室标准协会指南 (CLSI) 规程。
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
154
审稿时长
73 days
期刊介绍: Manuscripts of high standard in the form of original research, multicentric studies, meta analysis, are accepted. Current reports can be submitted as brief communications. Case reports must include review of current literature, clinical details, outcome and follow up. Letters to the editor must be a comment on or pertain to a manuscript already published in the IJMM or in relation to preliminary communication of a larger study. Review articles, Special Articles or Guest Editorials are accepted on invitation.
期刊最新文献
Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Dissemination of multidrug-resistant community-associated MRSA and emergence of LA-MRSA, in a healthcare setting Comparison of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of flash positive blood culture bottles using disk diffusion and automated broth microdilution on VITEK 2 compact with standard methods: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocol Fatal case of Leptospira wolffii infection in Sikkim, India: An autochthonous case from a new geographical region Sebaceous nevus affected by overgrowth of Malassezia restricta. The enigmatic voyage of pneumococcal carriage: Unraveling the risk factors in pediatric populations -- A scoping review
×
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