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.

Q3 Medicine
JAMMI Pub Date : 2020-10-11 eCollection Date: 2020-10-01 DOI:10.3138/jammi-2020-0004
William Stokes, Lorraine Campbell, Johann Pitout, John Conly, Deirdre Church, Dan Gregson
{"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,&nbsp;Lorraine Campbell,&nbsp;Johann Pitout,&nbsp;John Conly,&nbsp;Deirdre Church,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

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
背景:本实验室采用基质辅助激光解吸/电离飞行时间质谱法(MALDI)和直接从阳性血培养物(BC)中提取的VITEK 2系统(DV2)进行生物鉴定(ID)和抗菌药敏试验(AST)。我们的目的是比较直接MALDI-DV2与商业BC ID-AST平台,加速Pheno系统(AXDX),在临床和种子BC中革兰氏阴性杆菌(GNB)阳性的ID-AST。方法:收集GNB BC阳性3个月,采用AXDX和直接MALDI-DV2检测,并与常规方法进行比较。无菌BC的一个子集播种了多重耐药的GNB。结果:临床标本29份,种子标本35份。直接MALDI的ID失败率(31.0%)高于AXDX (3.4%);P < 0.001)。AXDX法、直接MALDI-DV2法和常规法的ID-AST时间分别为1.5 ~ 6.9 h、5.8 ~ 16.5 h和21.6 ~ 33.0 h (p < 0.001)。对于临床样本,AXDX和DV2基本一致(EA)或分类一致(CA)超过96%。对于种子样品,AXDX的EA、CA、VME、ME和次要误差(ME)分别为93.2%、89.0%、2.2%、0%和9.2%。AXDX有大量来自美罗培南检测的非报告(6.1%)。DV2的EA、CA、VME、ME、ME分别为97.5%、94.7%、1.3%、0%、4.1%。结论:直接MALDI-DV2和AXDX对临床样品具有较高的一致性,但直接MALDI-DV2在MDR GNB挑战时具有更高的一致性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信