4.6 Article

Detection of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales in Simulated Blood Culture in 15 Minutes

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life11020145

关键词

bacteremia; carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; NG-Test CARBA 5; bloodstream infections; blood culture

资金

  1. NG Biotech (Gamidor Diagnostics)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The NG-Test CARBA 5 kit showed good performance in detecting CRE, with a sensitivity of 86.8% and specificity of 100%. This tool is a reliable and accessible tool for the rapid diagnosis of CRE bloodstream infections.
Bacteremia leading to sepsis and organ dysfunction is a life-threatening situation, leading to death of up to one fourth of the infected individuals around the world. One major challenge in the treatment of sepsis is the rising prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE). In recent years, several molecular assays have been developed for the detection of CRE mechanisms, enabling rapid results reporting. We evaluated the performance of the NG-Test CARBA 5 (NG Biotech) kit in detection of CRE in simulated blood cultures. Carbapenemase-producing (CP) CRE isolates (n = 38) and non-carbapenemase CRE (Non-CP) isolates (n = 10), previously identified using the routine methods practiced at the clinical microbiology laboratory of the Baruch Padeh Medical Center, Israel, were used in this analysis. Variable concentrations of the bacterial isolates were added to a suspension composed of human blood and saline, simulating the composition of a blood culture. Samples were then transferred to an anaerobic blood culture bottle and later tested with the NG-Test CARBA 5 (NG Biotech) kit, that identifies the CRE mechanism within 15 min. The NG-Test CARBA 5 kit correctly identified 43 samples (89.5%). The sensitivity and specificity of the kits were 86.8% and 100%, respectively. In conclusion, the NG-Test CARBA 5 kit is a reliable and accessible tool for the rapid diagnosis of CRE bloodstream infections.

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