EUCAST对革兰氏阴性菌直接血培养快速药敏试验的评价。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Infection and Drug Resistance Pub Date : 2025-07-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/IDR.S514981
Peng-Peng Tian, Hui Yang, Tian Wang, Li Wang, Meng-Yao Du, Shan-Shan Su, Li-Sha Zhu, Xian-Mo Wang, Liang-Cai Xie, Wen Fan, Tian Tian, Hua-Wei Yi
{"title":"EUCAST对革兰氏阴性菌直接血培养快速药敏试验的评价。","authors":"Peng-Peng Tian, Hui Yang, Tian Wang, Li Wang, Meng-Yao Du, Shan-Shan Su, Li-Sha Zhu, Xian-Mo Wang, Liang-Cai Xie, Wen Fan, Tian Tian, Hua-Wei Yi","doi":"10.2147/IDR.S514981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) for Gram-negative bacteria directly from positive blood cultures, comparing it with short-term incubation (5-7 hours) and conventional broth microdilution methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 139 Gram-negative isolates were tested. RAST results were assessed at 4 h, 6 h against minimal inhibitory concentration results using the short-term incubation (5-7 h) method, while at 16-20 h, the RAST results were compared to conventional method. For those with interpretable results, CLSI M52 was used to define cutoffs for equivalence in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among all isolates, 80.6% (112/139) were successfully interpreted based on EUCAST RAST breakpoints, including <i>Escherichia coli</i> (81), <i>Klebsiella pneumoniae</i> complex (17), <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> (10) and <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> (4). The overall category agreements for all tested antibiotics were 98.9%, 99.5%, and 99.7% at 4, 6, and 16-20 hours, respectively, for <i>E. coli</i>, and 100% for <i>K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa</i>, and <i>A. baumannii</i>. The area of technical uncertainty rate significantly decreased over time, from 9.1% at 4 hours to 3.1% at 16-20 hours (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The method effectively identified extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and carbapenem-resistant bacteria, demonstrating performance comparable to the BD system. Additionally, results for other <i>Enterobacterales</i> could be interpreted using the RAST breakpoints for <i>E. coli</i>. The integration of RAST into routine workflows provides rapid and accurate results without incurring additional costs or labor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RAST is a reliable and cost-effective method for testing Gram-negative bacteria directly from blood cultures, significantly reducing turnaround time. Utilizing RAST at various reading times (6 hours and 16-20 hours) optimizes clinical workflows, enhances antimicrobial stewardship, and improves patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":13577,"journal":{"name":"Infection and Drug Resistance","volume":"18 ","pages":"3579-3590"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12297011/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteria Directly from Positive Blood Cultures.\",\"authors\":\"Peng-Peng Tian, Hui Yang, Tian Wang, Li Wang, Meng-Yao Du, Shan-Shan Su, Li-Sha Zhu, Xian-Mo Wang, Liang-Cai Xie, Wen Fan, Tian Tian, Hua-Wei Yi\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/IDR.S514981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) for Gram-negative bacteria directly from positive blood cultures, comparing it with short-term incubation (5-7 hours) and conventional broth microdilution methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 139 Gram-negative isolates were tested. RAST results were assessed at 4 h, 6 h against minimal inhibitory concentration results using the short-term incubation (5-7 h) method, while at 16-20 h, the RAST results were compared to conventional method. For those with interpretable results, CLSI M52 was used to define cutoffs for equivalence in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among all isolates, 80.6% (112/139) were successfully interpreted based on EUCAST RAST breakpoints, including <i>Escherichia coli</i> (81), <i>Klebsiella pneumoniae</i> complex (17), <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> (10) and <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> (4). The overall category agreements for all tested antibiotics were 98.9%, 99.5%, and 99.7% at 4, 6, and 16-20 hours, respectively, for <i>E. coli</i>, and 100% for <i>K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa</i>, and <i>A. baumannii</i>. The area of technical uncertainty rate significantly decreased over time, from 9.1% at 4 hours to 3.1% at 16-20 hours (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The method effectively identified extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and carbapenem-resistant bacteria, demonstrating performance comparable to the BD system. Additionally, results for other <i>Enterobacterales</i> could be interpreted using the RAST breakpoints for <i>E. coli</i>. The integration of RAST into routine workflows provides rapid and accurate results without incurring additional costs or labor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RAST is a reliable and cost-effective method for testing Gram-negative bacteria directly from blood cultures, significantly reducing turnaround time. Utilizing RAST at various reading times (6 hours and 16-20 hours) optimizes clinical workflows, enhances antimicrobial stewardship, and improves patient outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection and Drug Resistance\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"3579-3590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12297011/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection and Drug Resistance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S514981\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection and Drug Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S514981","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评价EUCAST快速药敏试验(RAST)对革兰氏阴性菌直接阳性血培养物的准确性,并与短期培养(5-7小时)和常规肉汤微量稀释法进行比较。方法:对139株革兰氏阴性分离株进行检测。采用短期孵育(5-7 h)法对4 h、6 h时的RAST结果与最低抑制浓度结果进行评估,16-20 h时的RAST结果与常规方法进行比较。对于那些可解释的结果,CLSI M52被用来定义等效的截止在抗菌药物敏感性试验。结果:所有分离株中,80.6%(112/139)的EUCAST断点被成功解读,包括大肠埃希菌(81)、肺炎克雷伯菌(17)、铜绿假单胞菌(10)和鲍曼不动杆菌(4)。在4、6和16-20小时,大肠杆菌的总体类别一致性分别为98.9%、99.5%和99.7%,肺炎克雷伯菌、铜绿假单胞菌和鲍曼假单胞菌的总体类别一致性为100%。随着时间的推移,技术不确定率区域显著下降,从4小时时的9.1%降至16-20小时时的3.1% (p < 0.05)。该方法有效地鉴定了广谱β -内酰胺酶(ESBL)产生菌和碳青霉烯耐药菌,其性能与BD系统相当。此外,其他肠杆菌的结果也可以用大肠杆菌的RAST断点来解释。将RAST集成到日常工作流程中可以提供快速准确的结果,而不会产生额外的成本或人工。结论:RAST是直接从血液培养物中检测革兰氏阴性菌的一种可靠、经济的方法,可显著缩短周转时间。在不同的阅读时间(6小时和16-20小时)利用RAST优化临床工作流程,加强抗菌药物管理,并改善患者的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of EUCAST Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteria Directly from Positive Blood Cultures.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) for Gram-negative bacteria directly from positive blood cultures, comparing it with short-term incubation (5-7 hours) and conventional broth microdilution methods.

Methods: A total of 139 Gram-negative isolates were tested. RAST results were assessed at 4 h, 6 h against minimal inhibitory concentration results using the short-term incubation (5-7 h) method, while at 16-20 h, the RAST results were compared to conventional method. For those with interpretable results, CLSI M52 was used to define cutoffs for equivalence in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

Results: Among all isolates, 80.6% (112/139) were successfully interpreted based on EUCAST RAST breakpoints, including Escherichia coli (81), Klebsiella pneumoniae complex (17), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10) and Acinetobacter baumannii (4). The overall category agreements for all tested antibiotics were 98.9%, 99.5%, and 99.7% at 4, 6, and 16-20 hours, respectively, for E. coli, and 100% for K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. The area of technical uncertainty rate significantly decreased over time, from 9.1% at 4 hours to 3.1% at 16-20 hours (p < 0.05). The method effectively identified extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and carbapenem-resistant bacteria, demonstrating performance comparable to the BD system. Additionally, results for other Enterobacterales could be interpreted using the RAST breakpoints for E. coli. The integration of RAST into routine workflows provides rapid and accurate results without incurring additional costs or labor.

Conclusion: RAST is a reliable and cost-effective method for testing Gram-negative bacteria directly from blood cultures, significantly reducing turnaround time. Utilizing RAST at various reading times (6 hours and 16-20 hours) optimizes clinical workflows, enhances antimicrobial stewardship, and improves patient outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infection and Drug Resistance
Infection and Drug Resistance Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
826
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: About Journal Editors Peer Reviewers Articles Article Publishing Charges Aims and Scope Call For Papers ISSN: 1178-6973 Editor-in-Chief: Professor Suresh Antony An international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the optimal treatment of infection (bacterial, fungal and viral) and the development and institution of preventative strategies to minimize the development and spread of resistance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信