JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Leverstein-van Hall, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Verhoef, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Leverstein-van Hall, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Verhoef, J.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2002, p. 3703-3711, Vol. 40, No. 10
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.10.3703-3711.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of the Etest ESBL and the BD Phoenix, VITEK 1, and VITEK 2 Automated Instruments for Detection of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases in Multiresistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp.

Maurine A. Leverstein-van Hall,* Ad C. Fluit, Armand Paauw, Adrienne T. A. Box, Sylvain Brisse, and Jan Verhoef

Eijkman-Winkler Institute for Microbiology, Infectious Diseases & Inflammation, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received 15 April 2002/ Returned for modification 30 May 2002/ Accepted 12 July 2002

Seventy-four isolates of multiresistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. recovered during a 3-year period and 17 control strains with genotypically identified beta-lactamases were tested for the production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) by using the Etest and the VITEK 1, VITEK 2, and Phoenix automated instruments. The use of the Etest was evaluated by investigating its accuracy in detecting the ESBLs of the control strains and by comparing interpretation results of laboratory technicians and experts. The accuracy of the Etest was 94%. With the Etest as the reference for the clinical strains and the genotype as the reference for the control strains, the automated instruments detected the ESBLs with accuracies of 78% (VITEK 2), 83% (VITEK 1), and 89% (Phoenix). No significant difference between the systems with regard to the control strains was detected. The VITEK 2 did, however, perform less well than the Phoenix (P = 0.03) on the collection of clinical isolates, mainly because of its high percentage of indeterminate test results (11%). No significant difference between the performances of the VITEK 1 and either the VITEK 2 or the Phoenix was found. However, because of its associated BDXpert system the Phoenix showed the best performance. The Etest was found to be an accurate test but was limited by its indeterminate results (4%), its inability to differentiate between K1 hyperproduction and ESBLs, questionable guidelines concerning mutants inside the inhibition zones, and the inability of the technicians to recognize subtle zone deformations.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Eijkman-Winkler Institute for Microbiology, Infectious Diseases & Inflammation, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room G04.614, P.O. Box 85000, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Phone: 31 (0)30 2507 625. Fax: 31 (0)30 2541 770. E-mail: M.LeversteinvHall{at}lab.azu.nl.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2002, p. 3703-3711, Vol. 40, No. 10
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.10.3703-3711.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.