William Stokes, Lorraine Campbell, Johann Pitout, John Conly, Deirdre Church, Dan Gregson
{"title":"加速表型测试BC试剂盒与MALDI-TOF MS/VITEK 2系统快速鉴定革兰氏阴性杆菌血流感染及药敏试验的比较","authors":"William Stokes, Lorraine Campbell, Johann Pitout, John Conly, Deirdre Church, Dan Gregson","doi":"10.3138/jammi-2020-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our laboratory uses matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI) and the VITEK 2 system (DV2) directly from positive blood cultures (BC) for organism identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Our objective was to compare direct MALDI-DV2 with a commercial BC ID-AST platform, the Accelerate Pheno system (AXDX), in the ID-AST of clinical and seeded BC positive for gram-negative bacilli (GNB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>BC positive for GNB were collected over a 3-mo period and tested using AXDX and direct MALDI-DV2 and compared with conventional methods. A subset of sterile BC were seeded with multi-drug-resistant GNB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine clinical samples and 35 seeded samples were analyzed. Direct MALDI had a higher ID failure rate (31.0%) than AXDX (3.4%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Time to ID-AST was 1.5-6.9 h, 5.8-16.5 h, and 21.6-33.0 h for AXDX, direct MALDI-DV2, and conventional methods, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). For clinical samples, AXDX and DV2 had essential agreement (EA) or categorical agreement (CA) of more than 96%. For seeded samples, AXDX had EA, CA, VME, ME, and minor error (mE) of 93.2%, 89.0%, 2.2%, 0%, and 9.2%, respectively. AXDX had a large number of non-reports (6.1%) stemming from meropenem testing. DV2 had EA, CA, VME, ME, and mE of 97.5%, 94.7%, 1.3%, 0%, and 4.1%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Direct MALDI-DV2 and AXDX both had high agreement for clinical samples, but direct MALDI-DV2 had higher agreement when challenged with MDR GNB.</p>","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":" ","pages":"145-157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9608732/pdf/jammi-2020-0004.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Accelerate PhenoTest BC Kit and MALDI-TOF MS/VITEK 2 System for the rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli causing bloodstream infections.\",\"authors\":\"William Stokes, Lorraine Campbell, Johann Pitout, John Conly, Deirdre Church, Dan Gregson\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/jammi-2020-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our laboratory uses matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI) and the VITEK 2 system (DV2) directly from positive blood cultures (BC) for organism identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Our objective was to compare direct MALDI-DV2 with a commercial BC ID-AST platform, the Accelerate Pheno system (AXDX), in the ID-AST of clinical and seeded BC positive for gram-negative bacilli (GNB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>BC positive for GNB were collected over a 3-mo period and tested using AXDX and direct MALDI-DV2 and compared with conventional methods. A subset of sterile BC were seeded with multi-drug-resistant GNB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine clinical samples and 35 seeded samples were analyzed. Direct MALDI had a higher ID failure rate (31.0%) than AXDX (3.4%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Time to ID-AST was 1.5-6.9 h, 5.8-16.5 h, and 21.6-33.0 h for AXDX, direct MALDI-DV2, and conventional methods, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). For clinical samples, AXDX and DV2 had essential agreement (EA) or categorical agreement (CA) of more than 96%. For seeded samples, AXDX had EA, CA, VME, ME, and minor error (mE) of 93.2%, 89.0%, 2.2%, 0%, and 9.2%, respectively. AXDX had a large number of non-reports (6.1%) stemming from meropenem testing. DV2 had EA, CA, VME, ME, and mE of 97.5%, 94.7%, 1.3%, 0%, and 4.1%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Direct MALDI-DV2 and AXDX both had high agreement for clinical samples, but direct MALDI-DV2 had higher agreement when challenged with MDR GNB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMMI\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"145-157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9608732/pdf/jammi-2020-0004.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMMI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2020-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2020-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Accelerate PhenoTest BC Kit and MALDI-TOF MS/VITEK 2 System for the rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli causing bloodstream infections.
Background: Our laboratory uses matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI) and the VITEK 2 system (DV2) directly from positive blood cultures (BC) for organism identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Our objective was to compare direct MALDI-DV2 with a commercial BC ID-AST platform, the Accelerate Pheno system (AXDX), in the ID-AST of clinical and seeded BC positive for gram-negative bacilli (GNB).
Methods: BC positive for GNB were collected over a 3-mo period and tested using AXDX and direct MALDI-DV2 and compared with conventional methods. A subset of sterile BC were seeded with multi-drug-resistant GNB.
Results: Twenty-nine clinical samples and 35 seeded samples were analyzed. Direct MALDI had a higher ID failure rate (31.0%) than AXDX (3.4%; p < 0.001). Time to ID-AST was 1.5-6.9 h, 5.8-16.5 h, and 21.6-33.0 h for AXDX, direct MALDI-DV2, and conventional methods, respectively (p < 0.001). For clinical samples, AXDX and DV2 had essential agreement (EA) or categorical agreement (CA) of more than 96%. For seeded samples, AXDX had EA, CA, VME, ME, and minor error (mE) of 93.2%, 89.0%, 2.2%, 0%, and 9.2%, respectively. AXDX had a large number of non-reports (6.1%) stemming from meropenem testing. DV2 had EA, CA, VME, ME, and mE of 97.5%, 94.7%, 1.3%, 0%, and 4.1%, respectively.
Conclusions: Direct MALDI-DV2 and AXDX both had high agreement for clinical samples, but direct MALDI-DV2 had higher agreement when challenged with MDR GNB.