Applicability and performance of EUCAST’s rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) on primarily sterile body fluids in blood culture bottles in laboratory routine with total lab automation

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Optimisation of microbiological diagnostics in primarily sterile body fluids is required. Our objective was to apply EUCAST’s RAST on primarily sterile body fluids in blood culture bottles with total lab automation (TLA) and to compare results to our reference method Vitek2 in order to report susceptibility results earlier. Positive blood culture bottles (BACTEC™ Aerobic/Anaerobic/PEDS) inoculated with primarily sterile body fluids were semi-automatically subcultured onto Columbia 5% SB agar, chocolate agar, MacConkey agar, Schaedler/KV agar and Mueller-Hinton agar. On latter, cefoxitin, ampicillin, vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem and ciprofloxacin were added. After 6 h, subcultures and RAST were imaged and MALDI-TOF MS was performed. Zone sizes were digitally measured and interpreted following RAST breakpoints for blood cultures. MIC values were determined using Vitek2 panels. During a 1-year period, 197 Staphylococcus aureus, 91 Enterococcus spp., 38 Escherichia coli, 11 Klebsiella pneumoniae and 8 Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found. Categorical agreement between RAST and MIC was 96.5%. Comparison showed no very major errors, 2/7 (28.6%) and 1/7 (14.3%) of major errors for P. aeruginosa and meropenem and ciprofloxacin, 1/9 (11.1%) for K. pneumoniae and ciprofloxacin, 4/69 (7.0%) and 3/43 (5.8%) for Enterococcus spp. and vancomycin and ampicillin, respectively. Minor errors for P. aeruginosa and meropenem (1/8; 12.8%) and for E. coli and ciprofloxacin (2/29; 6.5%) were found. 30/550 RAST measurements were within area of technical uncertainty. RAST is applicable and performs well for primarily sterile body fluids in blood culture bottles, partially better than blood-based RAST. Official EUCAST evaluation is needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10096-020-04146-6.

Related collections

Most cited references 18

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Blood culture bottle culture of pleural fluid in pleural infection.

Sarah Menzies, Najib M Rahman, John M Wrightson … (2011)

Pleural infection is common, and has a >30% major morbidity and mortality-particularly when infection is caused by Gram-negative, Staphylococcus aureus or mixed aerobic pathogens. Standard pleural fluid culture is negative in ∼40% of cases. Culturing pleural fluid in blood culture bottles may increase microbial yield, and is cheap and easy to perform.

0 comments Cited 35 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Direct-from-Blood-Culture Disk Diffusion To Determine Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Gram-Negative Bacteria: Preliminary Report from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Methods Development and Standardization Working Group

Sukantha Chandrasekaran, April Abbott, Shelley Campeau … (2018)

The performance of a disk diffusion test using broth from positive blood cultures as inoculum (direct disk diffusion [dDD]) was evaluated for a collection of 20 challenge isolates of Enterobacteriaceae , Acinetobacter baumannii , and Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Isolates seeded into human blood were inoculated into Bactec Plus Aerobic/F, VersaTREK Redox 1, and BacT/Alert FA Plus bottles and incubated in the respective automated blood culture systems. Disk diffusion results were compared to reference disk diffusion results. Categorical agreement (CA) values for dDD, after removal of random errors due to natural MIC variation, were 87.8%, 88.4%, and 92.2% for the BacT/Alert, Bactec, and VersaTREK systems, respectively. No very major errors (VME) were observed, and major error (ME) rates were 3.0%, 2.3%, and 1.7%, respectively. Incubation of the dDD test samples for 6 h compared to incubation for 16 to 18 h resulted in 19.9% of tests having too light of growth to allow reading of zones of inhibition. Among the evaluable dDD tests, CA values were 58.9%, 76.6%, and 73.2% for the isolates seeded into the BacT/Alert, Bactec, and VersaTREK systems, respectively. VME rates for isolates seeded into these systems were 2.2%, 1.8%, and 3.0%, respectively, and ME rates were 25.4%, 6.1%, and 2.8%, respectively, at the 6-h reading. The best performance of dDD was found for blood cultures with bacterial concentrations in the range of 7.6 × 10 7 to 5.0 × 10 8 CFU/ml; CA values ranged from 94.7 to 96.2% for these concentrations after 18 h of incubation and from 76.9 to 84.1% after 6 h of incubation. These preliminary data demonstrate the potential accuracy of dDD testing by the clinical laboratory.

0 comments Cited 24 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Performance of Vitek 2 for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacteriaceae with Vitek 2 (2009 FDA) and 2014 CLSI Breakpoints

April Bobenchik, Eszter Deak, Janet A Hindler … (2015)

Vitek 2 (bioMérieux Inc., Durham, NC) is a widely used commercial antimicrobial susceptibility test system. We compared the MIC results obtained using the Vitek 2 AST-GN69 and AST-XN06 cards to those obtained by CLSI broth microdilution (BMD) for 255 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae , including 25 isolates of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae . In total, 25 antimicrobial agents were examined. For 10 agents, the MIC data were evaluated using two sets of breakpoints: (i) the Vitek 2 breakpoints, which utilized the 2009 FDA breakpoints at the time of the study and are equivalent to the 2009 CLSI M100-S19 breakpoints, and (ii) the 2014 CLSI M100-S24 breakpoints. There was an overall 98.7% essential agreement (EA). The categorical agreement was 95.5% (CA) using the Vitek 2 breakpoints and 95.7% using the CLSI breakpoints. There was 1 very major error (VME) (0.05%) observed using the Vitek 2 breakpoints (cefazolin) and 8 VMEs (0.5%) using the CLSI breakpoints (2 each for aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftriaxone, and 1 for cefazolin and ceftazidime). Fifteen major errors (MEs) (0.4%) were noted using the Vitek 2 breakpoints and 8 (0.5%) using the CLSI breakpoints. Overall, the Vitek 2 performance was comparable to that of BMD for testing a limited number of Enterobacteriaceae commonly isolated by clinical laboratories. Ongoing studies are warranted to assess performance in isolates with emerging resistance.

0 comments Cited 22 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Jasmin Kaur Jasuja: jasmin.jasuja@med.uni-heidelberg.de

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis

Title: European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )

ISSN (Print): 0934-9723

ISSN (Electronic): 1435-4373

Publication date (Electronic): 12 January 2021

Publication date PMC-release: 12 January 2021

Publication date (Print): 2021

Volume: 40

Issue: 6

Pages: 1217-1225

Affiliations

GRID grid.5253.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0328 4908, Department for Infectious Diseases, , University Hospital Heidelberg, ; Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Article

Publisher ID: 4146

DOI: 10.1007/s10096-020-04146-6

PMC ID: 8139921

PubMed ID: 33438162

SO-VID: 7245249d-53e6-4ded-9512-6a535e23ee90

License:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.