Journals / Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni / 2005 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of diffusion test for carbapenem sensitivity in Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains

Acinetobacter baumannii ve Pseudomonas aeruginosa suşlarında karbapenem duyarlılığında disk difüzyon testinin degerlendirilmesi

Pages
273–279
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)

Routine quality control studies for antibiotic susceptibility tests and close observation of suspicious results, is mandatory for each laboratory, in order to achieve good quality performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted upon the detection of discordant results obtained for Acinetobacter species against meropenem by disk diffusion susceptibility and E-test method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Carbapenem (imipenem and meropenenn) sensitivites of 157 Acinetobacter baumanii and 157 Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were performed by disk diffusion test and E-test in our laboratory where quality control of antibiotic susceptibility tests are performed weekly.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Routine quality control studies for antibiotic susceptibility tests and close observation of suspicious results, is mandatory for each laboratory, in order to achieve good quality performance.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anti-bakteriyel ajanlar · Mikrobiyal duyarlılık testleri · Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Abstract

This study was conducted upon the detection of discordant results obtained for Acinetobacter species against meropenem by disk diffusion susceptibility and E-test method. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of disk diffusion method for the determination of carbapenem susceptibility in non-fermentative bacilli. Carbapenem (imipenem and meropenenn) sensitivites of 157 Acinetobacter baumanii and 157 Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were performed by disk diffusion test and E-test in our laboratory where quality control of antibiotic susceptibility tests are performed weekly. For meropenem, discordance of the two tests were 10.8% and 4.5% for Abaumannii and P.aeruginosa, respectively. MIC values and disk diffusion zone diameters were significantly different from each other. There was no difference in terms of imipenem in Abaumannii strains but 5.1% of P.aeruginosa isolates showed discordance. Since, for the P.aeruginosa isolates with discordant imipenem susceptibility results, the imipenem disk diffusion zones were close to the lower level and their MIC values were wjthin the intermediate resistance range, it was assumed that this technical discordance had low risk of reproducibility. In routine laboratories, meropenem resistance detected by disk diffusion method, should be verified by another technique. This is not only important for patient results but for epidemiological data as well. Routine quality control studies for antibiotic susceptibility tests and close observation of suspicious results, is mandatory for each laboratory, in order to achieve good quality performance.

Özet

Bu çalışma, hastanemizde rutin disk difüzyon testi (DD) yapılırken meropenem dirençli Acinetobacter türlerinin E-test kullanılarak doğrulanması sırasında bazı suşlarda uyumsuzluk görülmesi sonucunda, DD'nin fermenter olmayan basillerde karbapenem duyarlılık durumunu tespitteki başarısını sorgulamak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Rutin haftalık antibiyotik duyarlılık testi kalite kontrol çalışmalarının yapıldığı klinik mikrobiyoloji laboratuvarımızda izole edilmiş olan 157 Acinetobacter baumannii ve 157 Pseudomonas aeruginosa susunun karbapenem (imipenem ve meropenem) duyarlılığı DD testinin yanı sıra E-test ile değerlendirilmiştir. Meropenem için A.baumannii ve P.aeruginosa suşlarında DD ile E-test arasındaki uyumsuzluk oranı sırasıyla %10.8 ve %4.5 olarak bulunmuştur. Her iki grup bakteride de uyumsuzluk MİK değerleri ye disk difüzyon çapları göz önüne alındığında anlamlı farklılık şeklindedir. İmipenemde ise A.baumannii'öe uyumsuzluk saptanmazken, P.aeruginosa'da %5.1 oranında uyumsuzluk tespit edilmişse de, MİK değerlerinin orta düzey direnci göstermesi ve disk difüzyon çaplarının alt sınıra yakın olması, bu farklılığın teknik açıdan tekrarlanabilirliğinin düşük olduğunu düşündürmektedir. DD testi ile karbapenem duyarlılığının bakıldığı rutin laboratuvarlarda özellikle meropenem direnci tespit edildiğinde, farklı bir yöntem ile doğrulanması hem hasta sonuçları hem de epidemiyolojik veriler açısından önemlidir. Rutin antibiyotik duyarlılık testlerinin uygulanması sırasında her laboratuvar kendi koşulları içerisinde kontrol çalışmaları yapmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKAN, A. Ö., UYSAL, S. (2005). Evaluation of diffusion test for carbapenem sensitivity in Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3, 273–279. https://ajindex.com/articles/299053

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Members of SFM Antibiogram Committee: Comite de L'Antibiogramme de la Societe Francaise de Microbiologie: Report 2003. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2003, 21: 364-391
  2. Potz NA, Mushtaq S, Johnson AP, et al: Reliability of routine disc susceptibility testing by the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) method. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004,53: 729-738
  3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)/NCCLS: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Approved Standard M100 S15, 2005. CLSI/NCCLS Pennsylvania
  4. Ferraro MJ: Should we re-evaluate antibiotic breakpoints? Clin Infect Dis 2001, 33: 227- 229
  5. Stevenson KB, Samore M, Barbera J, et al: Detection of antimicrobial resistance by small rural hospital microbiology laboratories: comparison of survey responses with current NCCLS laboratory standards. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2003, 47: 303-311
  6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Performance standards for antimicrobial disc susceptibility tests. Approved Standard M100 S13, 2003. NCCLS Pennsylvania
  7. Jorgensen JH: Laboratory issues in detection and reporting of antibacterial resistance. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997, 11: 785-802
  8. Livermore DM, Chen HY: Quality of antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the UK: a Pseudomonas aeruginosa survey revisited. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999, 43: 517-522
  9. Oliver A: Hypermutation in natural bacterial populations: consequences for medical microbiology. Rev Med Microbiol 2005, 16: 25-32
  10. Gales AC, Jones RN, Forward KL, et al: Emerging importance of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter spp and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia as pathogens in seriously ill patients: geographic patterns, epidemiological features and trends in the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program (1997-1999). Clin Infect Dis 2001, 32: 104-113
  11. Livermore DM: Multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Our worst nightmare? Clin Infect Dis 2002, 34: 634-640
  12. Joyce LF, Downes J, Stockman K, Andrew JH: Comparison of five methods including the PDM Epsilometer test (E Test), or antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol 1992, 30: 2709-2713
  13. Colardyn F, Edwards JR: Carbapenems in difficult to treat infections in the ICU. Clin Intensive Care 1996, 7: 19-24
  14. Bradley JS, Garau J, Lode H, et al: Carbapenems in clinical practice: a guide to their use in serious infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999, 11: 93-10