Affiliation:
1. Department of Microbiology, Laboratory Group Heidelberg, D-69126 Heidelberg, Germany
2. Section of Microbiology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Parma, I-43100 Parma, Italy
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The performance of the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System (BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, Md.) was assessed for identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for the majority of clinically encountered bacterial isolates in a European collaborative two-center trial. A total of 469 bacterial isolates of the genera
Staphylococcus
(275 isolates),
Enterococcus
(179 isolates), and
Streptococcus
(15 isolates, for ID only) were investigated; of these, 367 were single patient isolates, and 102 were challenge strains tested at one center. Sixty-four antimicrobial drugs were tested, including the following drug classes: aminoglycosides, beta-lactam antibiotics, beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitors, carbapenems, cephems, folate antagonists, quinolones, glycopeptides, macrolides-lincosamides-streptogramin B (MLS), and others. Phoenix ID results were compared to those of the laboratories' routine ID systems (API 32 Staph, API 32 Strep, and VITEK 2 [bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France]); Phoenix AST results were compared to those of frozen standard broth microdilution (SBM) panels according to NCCLS guidelines (NCCLS document M 100-S 9, approved standard M 7-A 4). Discrepant results were repeated in duplicate. Concordant IDs of 97.1, 98.9, and 100% were observed for staphylococci, enterococci, and streptococci, respectively. For AST results the overall essential agreement was 93.3%; the category agreement was 97.3%; and the very major error rate, major error rate, and minor error rate were 1.2, 1.9, and 1.3%, respectively. In conclusion, the Phoenix ID results showed high agreement with results of the systems to which they were being compared; the AST performance was highly equivalent to that of the SBM reference method.
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Reference17 articles.
1. Bonten, M. J., R. Willems, and R. A. Weinstein. 2001. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: why are they here, and where do they come from? Lancet Infect. Dis.1:314-325.
2. Comparative Evaluation of the BD Phoenix and VITEK 2 Automated Instruments for Identification of Isolates of the
Burkholderia cepacia
Complex
3. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 2000. Guidance on review criteria for assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility devices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Food and Drug Administration Washington D.C.
4. Cetinkaya, Y., P. Falk, and C. G. Mayhall. 2000. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.13:686-707.
5. Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Societé Française de Microbiologie. 1999. 1999 report of the Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Societé Française de Microbiologie. Institut Pasteur Paris France.