4.7 Article

The EUCAST rapid disc diffusion method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing directly from positive blood culture bottles

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 75, 期 4, 页码 968-978

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkz548

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID)
  2. Region Kronoberg, Sweden, Research and Development funds [1075, 782331]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: With increasing antimicrobial resistance, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) becomes important, especially in patients with bloodstream infections. EUCAST decided to develop a standardized rapid method, based on EUCAST disc diffusion, to offer susceptibility reports within 4-8 h of a positive blood culture (BC). Methods: BC bottles were spiked with clinical isolates (n = 332) of the seven most relevant sepsis pathogens with a variety of resistance mechanisms. RAST was performed directly from the bottle and zones read after 4, 6 and 8 h. Several variables were investigated, including the effect of using different BC bottles and of a 0-18 h delay between a positive signal and the performance of RAST. Results: For five species, most inhibition zones could be read after 4 h. The proportion of results that could be interpreted increased from 75% at 4 h to 84% after 8 h. Categorical agreement against the reference method was good, with error rates of false susceptibility of 0.2%, 0.2% and 0.2% at 4, 6 and 8 h and false resistance of 1.2%, 0.2% and 0.1% at 4, 6 and 8 h, respectively. Conclusions: With the EUCAST RAST method, reliable AST results can be delivered within 4-8 h of positivity of BC bottles for seven important bloodstream infection pathogens. To reduce the occurrence of errors and to absorb the variability caused by using a non-standardized inoculum, material from different manufacturers and workflow-related delays, we have introduced an area in which interpretation is not permitted, the Area of Technical Uncertainty.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据