HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kobayashi, I. Articles by Yamaguchi, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kobayashi, I. Articles by Yamaguchi, K. Agricola Articles by Kobayashi, I. Articles by Yamaguchi, K.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus by the VITEK 2 system, and comparison with two NCCLS reference methods

¹Chemotherapy Division, Mitsubishi Kagaku Bio-Clinical Laboratories Inc., 3-30-1 Shimura, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 174-8555, Japan ²Department of Microbiology, Toho University of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence Intetsu Kobayashi mbc-ka{at}sa2.so-net.ne.jp

Received June 3, 2004
Accepted August 17, 2004

We evaluated the automated VITEK 2 system (bioMérieux) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). The results obtained with the VITEK 2 system were compared to those obtained using two NCCLS reference methods. The VITEK 2 system produced MICs for penicillin G, erythromycin and vancomycin that were very similar to those of the reference agar-dilution test with all results being within a twofold dilution. When MICs of teicoplanin for these isolates were measured by the agar-dilution method and VITEK 2 system, there was one ‘very major’ error and seven ‘minor’ errors. There were no ‘major’ errors for any of the antibiotics tested. When the results obtained by the micro broth-dilution method were compared with those obtained by the VITEK 2 system, there was one ‘very major’ error for teicoplanin by the VITEK 2 system, as was the case with the agar-dilution method. There were two ‘minor’ errors for erythromycin and seven ‘minor’ errors for teicoplanin. There were no ‘major’ errors for any of the antibiotics tested. The 35 VRE strains identified phenotypically by the VITEK 2 Advanced Expert System included nine of Enterococcus faecalis and 23 of Enterococcus faecium. Neither Enterococcus avium nor Enterococcus hirae were identified. A total of 32 phenotypes were classified into 22 VanA and 10 VanB strains. PCR genotyping demonstrated 23 vanA⁺ and nine vanB⁺ strains. There were differences between the VITEK 2 system results and those of PCR. Overall, 54.3 % of the test results were obtained within 7 h. All MIC values for the 35 VRE isolates were determined within 13 h of completing incubation. The VITEK 2 system is a simple method for accurately detecting vancomycin-resistant strains of Enterococcus and can be used to rapidly determine MICs.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Abele-Horn, L. Hommers, R. Trabold, and M. Frosch Validation of VITEK 2 Version 4.01 Software for Detection, Identification, and Classification of Glycopeptide-Resistant Enterococci J. Clin. Microbiol., January 1, 2006; 44(1): 71 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]