4.7 Article

Performance of Various Testing Methodologies for Detection of Heteroresistant Vancomycin-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in Bloodstream Isolates

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 1489-1494

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02302-10

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The best screening method for detecting heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (hVISA) remains unclear. Using population analysis profiling utilizing the area under the concentration-time curve (PAP-AUC) as the gold standard, we screened 458 consecutive methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bloodstream isolates to determine the most accurate and cost-effective testing strategy to detect the presence of heteroresistance. All isolates were also tested using the macromethod Etest (MET) and glycopeptide resistance detection (GRD) Etest. The MIC was determined by several methods, including standard vancomycin Etest, vancomycin broth microdilution (BMD), and Vitek2 testing. Fifty-five (12%) hVISA and 4 (1%) VISA isolates were detected by PAP-AUC. Compared to PAP-AUC, the sensitivities and specificities of MET, GRD Etest, BMD (using a MIC cutoff of >= 2 mg/liter), and standard vancomycin Etest (using a MIC cutoff of >= 2 mg/liter) were 89 and 55%, 71 and 94%, 82 and 97%, and 71 and 94%, respectively. Combination testing increased the overall testing accuracy by reducing the number of false-positive results. Cost was determined predominately by the number of PAP-AUC runs required following a screening assay. The most cost-effective strategy was BMD (using a MIC cutoff of >= 2 mu g/ml) as a standalone assay or in combination with PAP-AUC, provided that BMD testing was batched. GRD Etest remained an alternative, with 71% of hVISA isolates detected. Prevalence influenced both cost and test accuracy, with results remaining unchanged for hVISA prevalences of up to 25%. Implementation of any testing strategy would therefore be dependent on balancing cost with accuracy in a given population and clinical context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据