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 Swenson, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Tenover, F. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Swenson, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Tenover, F. C.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2004, p. 5102-5108, Vol. 42, No. 11
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.11.5102-5108.2004

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Acinetobacter spp. by NCCLS Broth Microdilution and Disk Diffusion Methods

Jana M. Swenson,* George E. Killgore, and Fred C. Tenover

Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Epidemiology and Laboratory Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Received 2 April 2004/ Returned for modification 21 June 2004/ Accepted 19 July 2004

Although both broth microdilution (BMD) and disk diffusion (DD) are listed by NCCLS as acceptable methods for testing Acinetobacter spp. for antimicrobial susceptibility, few studies have compared the results generated by the two methods. We tested 196 isolates of Acinetobacter spp. from nine U.S. hospitals and from the Centers for Disease Control culture collection by using BMD and DD and clinically appropriate antimicrobial agents. Categorical results for amikacin, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, gentamicin, imipenem, levofloxacin, meropenem, tobramycin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were comparable for the two methods: there was only one very major (VM) error, with tobramycin, and only one major (M) error, with meropenem, when DD results were compared with BMD results. However, VM errors were frequent with the ß-lactams and ß-lactam-ß-lactam inhibitor combinations, while M errors were often observed with tetracyclines. For BMD, tests frequently exhibited subtle growth patterns that were difficult to interpret, especially for ß-lactams. If subtle growth (i.e., granular, small button, or "starry" growth) was considered positive, error rates between BMD and DD were unacceptably high for ampicillin-sulbactam (VM error, 9.8%; minor [m] error, 16.1%), piperacillin (VM error, 5.7%; m error, 13.5%), piperacillin-tazobactam (VM error, 9.3%; m error, 12.9%), ceftazidime (VM error, 6.2%; m error, 11.4%), cefepime (VM error, 6.2%; m error, 13.0%), cefotaxime (m error, 21.2%), ceftriaxone (m error, 23.3%), tetracycline (M error, 11.4%; m error, 32.1%), and doxycycline (M error, 2.6%). When subtle growth patterns were ignored, the agreement still did not achieve acceptable levels. To determine if the problems with BMD testing occurred in other laboratories, we sent frozen BMD panels containing ß-lactam drugs and nine isolates to six labs with experience in performing BMD and DD. Among these laboratories, cefepime MICs ranged from ≤8 to ≥32 µg/ml for four of the nine strains, confirming the problem in interpreting BMD results. Discrepancies between the categorical interpretations of BMD and DD tests were noted primarily with cefepime and piperacillin, for which the BMD results were typically more resistant. Clinical laboratories should be aware of these discrepancies. At present, there are no data to indicate which method provides more clinically relevant information.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: CDC, Mailstop G08, 1600 Clifton Rd., NE, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: (404) 639-0196. Fax: (404) 639-1381. E-mail: jswenson{at}cdc.gov.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2004, p. 5102-5108, Vol. 42, No. 11
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.11.5102-5108.2004




This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Akers, K. S., Mende, K., Yun, H. C., Hospenthal, D. R., Beckius, M. L., Yu, X., Murray, C. K. (2009). Tetracycline Susceptibility Testing and Resistance Genes in Isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii-Acinetobacter calcoaceticus Complex from a U.S. Military Hospital. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53: 2693-2695 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Moland, E. S., Craft, D. W., Hong, S.-g., Kim, S.-y., Hachmeister, L., Sayed, S. D., Thomson, K. S. (2008). In Vitro Activity of Tigecycline against Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and Selection of Tigecycline-Amikacin Synergy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52: 2940-2942 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Peleg, A. Y., Seifert, H., Paterson, D. L. (2008). Acinetobacter baumannii: Emergence of a Successful Pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 21: 538-582 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Beceiro, A., Fernandez-Cuenca, F., Ribera, A., Martinez-Martinez, L., Pascual, A., Vila, J., Rodriguez-Bano, J., Cisneros, J. M., Pachon, J., Bou, G., on behalf of the Spanish Group for Nosocomial Infe, (2008). False extended-spectrum {beta}-lactamase detection in Acinetobacter spp. due to intrinsic susceptibility to clavulanic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 61: 301-308 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Perez, F., Hujer, A. M., Hujer, K. M., Decker, B. K., Rather, P. N., Bonomo, R. A. (2007). Global Challenge of Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51: 3471-3484 [Full Text]  
  • Stone, N. D., O'Hara, C. M., Williams, P. P., McGowan, J. E. Jr., Tenover, F. C. (2007). Comparison of Disk Diffusion, VITEK 2, and Broth Microdilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Results for Unusual Species of Enterobacteriaceae. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 340-346 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hawley, J. S., Murray, C. K., Griffith, M. E., McElmeel, M. L., Fulcher, L. C., Hospenthal, D. R., Jorgensen, J. H. (2007). Susceptibility of Acinetobacter Strains Isolated from Deployed U.S. Military Personnel. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51: 376-378 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»