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 CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Torres, E. Articles by Bou, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Torres, E. Articles by Bou, G. Agricola Articles by Torres, E. Articles by Bou, G.

Comparison of different methods of determining β-lactam susceptibility in clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Servicio de Microbiología – Unidad de Investigación, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Juan Canalejo, La Coruña, Spain

Correspondence
Germán Bou
germanbou{at}canalejo.org

Received August 3, 2008
Accepted January 12, 2009

One hundred and one randomly selected (2003–2005) clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were used to assess the quantitative (MIC) and qualitative (susceptibility category) agreement between the microdilution broth reference method (RM) and disc diffusion (DD), Etest and the VITEK 2 automated susceptibility test system for determination of the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa to piperacillin (PIP), PIP–tazobactam (TZP), ceftazidime (CAZ), aztreonam (ATM) cefepime (FEP) and imipenem (IMP). The results obtained by the RM were compared with those obtained by the other methods. The RM and DD were performed according to CLSI criteria. Etest and VITEK 2 were according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Advanced Expert System (AES), which interprets MICs generated by VITEK 2, was modified with new rules of interpretation. Overall, VITEK 2 showed the lowest MIC₉₀ values for the six antibiotics. The RM categorical testing (susceptibility and resistance) rates with P. aeruginosa were 11.8 and 88.1 for PIP, 22.7 and 77.2 for TZP, 14.8 and 78.2 for CAZ, 12.8 and 54.4 for ATM, 16.8 and 75.3 for FEP, and 7.9 and 90.1 for IMP, respectively. Very major errors (false susceptible) were only detected for ATM and FEP with DD and for IMP with three methods. Major errors (false resistant) were generally acceptable for all antibiotics except TZP. VITEK 2 yielded a high level of minor errors (trends toward false susceptibility), mainly with CAZ and FEP. A good agreement was obtained for all antibiotics/methods assayed, thus highlighting the importance of the AES for categorization of β-lactam susceptibility in P. aeruginosa.

Abbreviations: AES, Advanced Expert System; ATM, aztreonam; CAZ, ceftazidime; DD, disc diffusion; FEP, cefepime; IMP, imipenem; PIP, piperacillin; RM, reference method; TZP, piperacillin–tazobactam.