4.6 Article

Evaluation of Modified Rapid Carbapenem Inactivation Method (mrCIM) Combined with Rapid EDTA-Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method (reCIM) to Detect Carbapenemase and Distinguish Metallo-Carbapenemase in Enterobacteriaceae Within Four Hours

期刊

INFECTION AND DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 1919-1927

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S249570

关键词

modified rapid carbapenem inactivation method; rapid EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method; metallo-carbapenemase; Enterobacteriaceae; detection

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81803110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To develop a rapid EDTA-modified carbapenem inactivation method (reCIM) combined with modified rapid carbapenem inactivation method (mrCIM) to detect carbapenemase and distinguish metallo-beta-lactamases from carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae in 4 hrs. Materials and Methods: The sensitivities and specificities of mrCIM and reCIM were retrospectively evaluated in 247 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae of which 107 were carbapenemase producers confirmed by PCR and sequencing. In addition, mrCIM and reCIM were prospectively evaluated with 47 carbapenem-resistant enterobacterial isolates. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of mrCIM were 96.3% and 97.1% at 2.5 hrs post incubation, and the specificity increased to 98.6% at 3 hrs. The combined mrCIM and reCIM showed a sensitivity of 95.4% and a specificity of 100% at 2.5 hrs post incubation in identifying metallo-beta-lactamases, and the sensitivity increased to 97.0% at 3 hrs. These performance characteristics are comparable to mCIM and eCIM; however, compared with mCIM and reCIM tests which need at least 24 hrs to detect results, the mrCIM and reCIM required less than 4 hrs of total work time. Conclusion: The combined mrCIM and reCIM can be used to accurately and quickly detect carbapenemase and metallo-beta-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae in 4 hrs and are suitable for routine use in most clinical microbiology laboratories.

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

4.6
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