4.1 Article

Rapid Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) in Rectal Samples from Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 289-293

出版社

ELSEVIER BRAZIL
DOI: 10.1590/S1413-86702009000400010

关键词

Enterococcus; VRE; vancomycin; diagnostic; PCR

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. LEMC
  3. UFCSPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reduction in time required to identify vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) has gained increased importance during hospital outbreaks. In the present study, we implemented a laboratory protocol to speed up the VRE screening from rectal samples. The protocol combines a medium for selective VRE isolation (VREBAC (R), Probac, Sao Paulo) and a multiplex PCR for detection and identification of vanA and vanB resistance genes. The screening performance was analyzed in 114 specimens collected from four intensive care units. The swabs were collected at two periods: (1) during a VRE outbreak (February 2006, n=83 patients) and (2) at the post-outbreak period, after adoption of infection control measures (June 2006, n=31 patients). Forty-one/83 VRE (49.4%) and 3/31(9.7%) VRE were found at the first and second period, respectively. All isolates harbored the vanA gene. In both periods, detection of the gene vanA parallels to the minimum inhibitory concentration values of >256 mu g/mL and >48 mu g/mL for vancomycin and teicoplanin, respectively. Multiplex PCR and conventional methods agreed in 90.2% for enterococci identification. Besides this accuracy, we also found a remarkable reduction in time to obtain results. Detection of enterococcal species and identification of vancomycin resistance genes were ready in 29.5 hours, in comparison to 72 hours needed by the conventional methods. In conclusion, our protocol identified properly and rapidly enterococci species and vancomycin-resistance genes. The results strongly encourage its adoption by microbiology laboratories for VRE screenning in rectal samples.

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

4.1
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