SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sağlık Hizmetleri Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 4

Comparison of Colistin Resistance in Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Clinical Isolates Using Broth Microdilution and Automated Systems

Klinik Örneklerden İzole Edilen Çoklu İlaç Dirençli Gram Negatif İzolatların Kolistin Direncinin Sıvı Mikrodilüsyon ve Otomatize Sistem ile Karşılaştırılması

Tuba Çiftçi(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0005-2486-7068
Ayşe Hümeyra Taşkın Kafa(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-7282-4928
Pages
74–81
Publication Date
2026-10-08
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Performance analysis of the BD Phoenix™ 100 system demonstrated an overall categorical agreement (CA) of 81.0%, a major error (ME) rate of 3.5%, and a very major error (VME) rate of 57.6%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria have become a major healthcare problem, particularly in hospital-acquired infections.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accurate determination of colistin susceptibility is therefore critical for appropriate patient management.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Performance analysis of the BD Phoenix™ 100 system demonstrated an overall categorical agreement (CA) of 81.0%, a major error (ME) rate of 3.5%, and a very major error (VME) rate of 57.6%.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Acinetobacter baumannii · BD Phoenix otomatize sistem · Klebsiella pneumoniae

Abstract

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria have become a major healthcare problem, particularly in hospital-acquired infections. Colistin remains one of the last-resort antibiotics against pathogens such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Accurate determination of colistin susceptibility is therefore critical for appropriate patient management. In this study, the BD Phoenix™ 100 automated system was compared with the broth microdilution (BMD) method for colistin susceptibility testing. A total of 758 Gram-negative isolates were evaluated. According to the BMD method, 541 (71.4%) isolates were susceptible and 217 (28.6%) were resistant, whereas the Phoenix™ 100 system reported 647 (85.4%) isolates as susceptible and 111 (14.6%) as resistant. Performance analysis of the BD Phoenix™ 100 system demonstrated an overall categorical agreement (CA) of 81.0%, a major error (ME) rate of 3.5%, and a very major error (VME) rate of 57.6%. Species-based analysis revealed CA, ME, and VME rates of 81.3%, 2.4%, and 65.0% for A. baumannii; 80.8%, 4.9%, and 50.5% for K. pneumoniae; and 79.5%, 3.3%, and 57.1% for P. aeruginosa, respectively. The high VME rates indicate that a substantial proportion of resistant isolates may be falsely reported as susceptible, posing a serious risk for treatment failure. In conclusion, the broth microdilution method should remain the gold standard for colistin susceptibility testing, and Phoenix™ 100 results should be confirmed by BMD, particularly for critical isolates.

Özet

Çoklu ilaca dirençli (ÇİD) Gram-negatif bakteriler, özellikle hastane enfeksiyonlarında tedavi seçeneklerini kısıtlayan önemli bir sağlık sorunudur. Kolistin, Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae ve Pseudomonas aeruginosa gibi patojenlere karşı son çare antibiyotiklerden biri olarak kullanılmaktadır. Ancak kolistin duyarlılığının doğru belirlenmesi, uygun tedavi yönetimi açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmada kolistin duyarlılığının belirlenmesinde BD Phoenix™ 100 sistemi ile sıvı mikrodilüsyon (SMD) yöntemi karşılaştırılmıştır. Toplam 758 Gram-negatif izolat değerlendirilmiştir. SMD yöntemine göre izolatların 541’i (%71,4) duyarlı, 217’si (%28,6) dirençli bulunurken; Phoenix™ 100 sistemi ile 647 (%85,4) izolat duyarlı, 111’i (%14,6) dirençli olarak raporlanmıştır. Tanı testi performans analizinde BD Phoenix™ 100 sisteminin genel kategorik uyumu (KU) %81,0, büyük hata (BH) oranı %3,5 ve çok büyük hata (ÇBH) oranı %57,6 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Tür bazında değerlendirildiğinde A. baumannii için KU %81,3, BH %2,4, ÇBH %65,0; K. pneumoniae için KU %80,8, BH %4,9, ÇBH %50,5; P. aeruginosa için ise KU %79,5, BH %3,3, ÇBH %57,1 bulunmuştur. Özellikle yüksek ÇBH oranı, dirençli izolatların yanlışlıkla duyarlı olarak raporlanabileceğini göstermekte ve tedavi başarısızlığı açısından ciddi risk oluşturmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, kolistin duyarlılığının değerlendirilmesinde SMD yönteminin altın standart olarak kullanılması ve Phoenix™ 100 sonuçlarının doğrulanması gerektiği düşünülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çiftçi, T., Kafa, A. H. T. (2026). Comparison of Colistin Resistance in Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Clinical Isolates Using Broth Microdilution and Automated Systems. Sağlık Hizmetleri Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 4, 74–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/1646308

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Arıcı, N., Kansak, N., Adaleti, R., & Aksaray, S. (2023). Comparison of Broth Microdilution and Colistin Disk Elution Methods for the Determination of Colistin Susceptibility in Multidrug Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates. Mediterranean Journal of Infection Microbes and Antimicrobials, 12(1), 14-14. https\://doi.org/10.4274/mjima.galenos.2023.2023.14
  2. Aupaix, A., Lamraoui, K., Rodriguez-Villalobos, H., Anantharajah, A., & Verroken, A. (2024). Comparison of two commercial broth microdilution panels for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: Thermo Scientific™ Sensititre DKMGN vs. Beckman Coulter MicroScan NMDRM1. Frontiers in microbiology, 15, 1480687. https\://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1480687
  3. Aytaç, Ö., Öner, P., Şenol, F. F., & Aşçı-Toraman, Z. (2022). Klinik Örneklerden İzole Edilen Çoklu Dirençli Acinetobacter baumannii İzolatlarının Kolistin Direncinin Sıvı Mikrodilüsyon, Sensititre ve İki Farklı Otomatize Sistem ile Karşılaştırılması. Klimik Journal/Klimik Dergisi, 35(3), 159-63. https\://doi.org/10.36519/kd.2022.4092
  4. Borcan, A. M., Rotaru, E., Caravia, L. G., Filipescu, M. C., & Simoiu, M. (2025). Trends in Antimicrobial Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Bloodstream Infections: An Eight-Year Study in a Romanian Tertiary Hospital. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 18(7), 948. https\://doi.org/10.3390/ph18070948
  5. Ceylan, A. N., Kömeç, S., Gülmez, A., & Öncel, B. (2023). Evaluation of Colistin Performance of Phoenix M50 with Sensitivity to FRCOL in Clinical Isolates. Cam and Sakura Med J 2023;3(3):101-106. https\://doi.org/10.4274/csmedj.galenos.2023.2023-4-4
  6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). (2023a). Development of In Vitro Susceptibility Test Methods, Breakpoints, and Quality Control Parameters (6th ed., CLSI guideline M23). CLSI
  7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). (2023b). Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (33rd ed., CLSI supplement M100). CLSI.
  8. EUCAST (2023). European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters, Version 13.0. https\://www\.eucast.org
  9. Giske, C. G., Turnidge, J., Cantón, R., Kahlmeter, G., & EUCAST Steering Committee (2022). Update from the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Journal of clinical microbiology, 60(3), e0027621. https\://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00276-21
  10. Jayol, A., Nordmann, P., Lehours, P., Poirel, L., & Dubois, V. (2018). Comparison of methods for detection of plasmid-mediated and chromosomally encoded colistin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 24(2), 175–179. https\://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2017.06.002
  11. Koyuncu Özyurt, Ö., Özhak, B., Öğünç, D., Yıldız, E., Çolak, D., Günseren, F., & Öngüt, G. (2019). Kolistinin Gram-negatif Bakterilere İn Vitro Etkinliğinin Belirlenmesinde BD Phoenix100 Sistemi ve Kolistin Sıvı Disk Elüsyon Yöntemlerinin Değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the BD Phoenix100 System and Colistin Broth Disk Elution Method for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Colistin Against Gram-negative Bacteria]. Mikrobiyoloji bulteni, 53(3), 254–261. https\://doi.org/10.5578/mb.68066
  12. Lupo, A., Haenni, M., & Madec, J. Y. (2018). Antimicrobial Resistance in Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas spp. Microbiology spectrum, 6(3), 10.1128/microbiolspec.arba-0007-2017. https\://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.ARBA-0007-2017
  13. Nadir, Y., & Batırel, A. A. (2024). Review of Colistin Susceptibility Testing with Current Data. Mediterranean Journal of Infection, Microbes & Antimicrobials, 13(1). https\://doi.org/10.4274/mjima.galenos.2024.24056.3
  14. Pfennigwerth, N., Kaminski, A., Korte-Berwanger, M., Pfeifer, Y., Simon, M., Werner, G., Jantsch, J., Marlinghaus, L., & Gatermann, S. G. (2019). Evaluation of six commercial products for colistin susceptibility testing in Enterobacterales. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 25(11), 1385–1389. https\://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.017
  15. Sacco, F., Visca, P., Runci, F., Antonelli, G., & Raponi, G. (2021). Susceptibility Testing of Colistin for Acinetobacter baumannii: How Far Are We from the Truth?. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 10(1), 48. https\://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10010048
  16. Schweer, J., Peters, F., & Ahmad-Nejad, P. (2025). Rapid detection of carbapenemases in multiresistant Gram-negative strains: evaluation of two tests. Microbiology spectrum, 13(10), e0278924. https\://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02789-24
  17. Singh, A., Bhatia, M., Rekha, S., Rani, D., Kamboj, P., Chakraborty, D., & Gupta, P. (2022). Comparative Evaluation of Colistin Broth Disk Elution Method With Two Commercially Available Systems for Colistin Susceptibility Testing Against Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: A Single-Center Exploratory Study. Cureus, 14(5), e25549. https\://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.25549
  18. Vourli, S., Dafopoulou, K., Vrioni, G., Tsakris, A., & Pournaras, S. (2017). Evaluation of two automated systems for colistin susceptibility testing of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 72(9), 2528–2530. https\://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx186
  19. Yiş, R. (2022). Comparison of Broth Microdilution Method with BD Phoenix, Micro Scan and E-test for Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: Colistin Susceptibility Testing. Journal of Academic Research in Medicine, 12(2), 61-65. https\://doi.org/10.4274/jarem.galenos.2022.70299
  20. Zhu, Y., Jia, P., Zhou, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, G., Kang, W., Duan, S., Wang, T., Xu, Y., & Yang, Q. (2021). Evaluation of the Clinical Systems for Polymyxin Susceptibility Testing of Clinical Gram-Negative Bacteria in China. Frontiers in microbiology, 11, 610604. https\://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.610604