4.7 Article

Direct Identification of Urinary Tract Pathogens from Urine Samples, Combining Urine Screening Methods and Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 988-993

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02832-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. Menarini, S.A.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTIs) is essential to avoid inadequate or unnecessary empirical antibiotic therapy. Microbiological confirmation takes 24 to 48 h. The use of screening methods, such as cytometry and automated microscopic analysis of urine sediment, allows the rapid prediction of negative samples. In addition, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a widely established technique in clinical microbiology laboratories used to identify microorganisms. We evaluated the ability of MALDI-TOF MS to identify microorganisms from direct urine samples and the predictive value of automated analyzers for the identification of microorganisms in urine by MALDI-TOF MS. A total of 451 urine samples from patients with suspected UTIs were first analyzed using the Sysmex UF-1000i flow cytometer, an automatic sediment analyzer with microscopy (SediMax), culture, and then processed by MALDI-TOF MS with a simple triplecentrifuged procedure to obtain a pellet that was washed and centrifuged and finally applied directly to the MALDI-TOF MS plate. The organisms in 336 samples were correctly identified, mainly those with Gram-negative bacteria (86.10%). No microorganisms were misidentified, and no Candida spp. were correctly identified. Regarding the data from autoanalyzers, the best bacteriuria cutoffs were 1,000 and 200 U/mu l for UF-1000i and SediMax, respectively. It was concluded that the combination of a urine screening method and MALDI-TOF MS provided a reliable identification from urine samples, especially in those containing Gram-negative bacteria.

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