This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Other Versions of this Article: JCM.01716-06v1 45/4/1339    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Juretschko, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Juretschko, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2007, p. 1339-1342, Vol. 45, No. 4
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01716-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Accuracies of ß-Lactam Susceptibility Test Results for Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Four Automated Systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2)

Stefan Juretschko,^1* Vincent J. LaBombardi,² Stephen A. Lerner,³ Paul C. Schreckenberger,⁴ and and the Pseudomonas AST Study Group

Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202,¹ St. Vincent's Hospital-Manhattan, New York, New York 10011,² Wayne State University, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan 48201,³ Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 60153⁴

Received 18 August 2006/ Returned for modification 7 November 2006/ Accepted 5 January 2007

Contemporary clinical isolates and challenge strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were tested by four automated susceptibility testing systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2; two laboratories with each) against six broad-spectrum ß-lactams, and the results were compared to reference broth microdilution (BMD) and to consensus results from three validated methods (BMD, Etest [AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden], and disk diffusion). Unacceptable levels of error (minor, major, and very major) were detected, some with systematic biases toward false susceptibility (piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem) and others toward false resistance (aztreonam, cefepime, and ceftazidime). We encourage corrective action by the system manufacturers to address test biases, and we suggest that clinical laboratories using automated systems should consider accurate alternative methods for routine use.

Published ahead of print on 17 January 2007.

The study group includes J. E. McGowan, Jr., F. C. Tenover, and P. P. Williams at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; G. Pipia at St. Vincent's Hospital-Manhattan, New York, NY; V. Rekasius at Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL; C. E. Essmyer and J. Yates at St. Luke's Regional Laboratories, Kansas City, MO; T. Beavers-May at Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR; T. Painter at Wayne State University Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI; L. L. Steed and J. A. Bosso at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; and R. N. Jones at JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, IA.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Mazzariol, A., Aldegheri, M., Ligozzi, M., Lo Cascio, G., Koncan, R., Fontana, R. (2008). Performance of Vitek 2 in Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates with Different Mechanisms of {beta}-Lactam Resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 2095-2098 [Abstract] [Full Text]