Comparison of workflow and accuracy of identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enterococci by Vitek 2 and routine methods

5Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Three hundred and fifty-three consecutive urine cultures growing Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa or enterococci were subjected to parallel identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) by Vitek 2 and routine methods, including simple screening tests or API 20 E for ID and standardized disc diffusion for AST. Accuracy of results, technician hands-on time required by both methods and time to results were compared. Vitek 2 correctly identified 322 (94.7%) of the 340 gram-negative isolates and 17 (81%) of the 21 Enterococcus faecalis strains. AST by Vitek 2 and disc diffusion gave category agreement for 4,058 (95.5%) of 4,248 organism-antimicrobial agent combinations. With MIC determination by E-test as reference, AST by Vitek 2 and disc diffusion produced 15 and 3 very major errors, respectively. Six (40%) of the fifteen very major errors by Vitek 2 were associated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. With an average of 22 specimens processed per day, use of Vitek 2 saved 80 min per day of technician hands-on time as compared to routine methods. Regarding the cost of hands-on worktime and consumables, use of Vitek 2 for identification of Escherichia coli-screened Enterobacteriaceae saved 0.70 p per sample in comparison to API 20 E. More than 80% of Enterobacteriaceae introduced to Vitek 2 in the morning could be reported by 16:00. © 2006 The Authors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rantakokko-Jalava, K., Elo-Lehtonen, E., & Meurman, O. (2006). Comparison of workflow and accuracy of identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enterococci by Vitek 2 and routine methods. APMIS, 114(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0463.2006.apm_338.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free