z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Implementing EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing method for sepsis: lessons learned in a tertiary care center
Author(s) -
M. A. Najeeb,
Ayush Gupta,
Shashank Purwar,
Vishnu Teja Nallapati,
Jogender Yadav,
Farha Siddiqui
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the journal of infection in developing countries
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.322
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 2036-6590
pISSN - 1972-2680
DOI - 10.3855/jidc.13799
Subject(s) - medicine , tazobactam , meropenem , klebsiella pneumoniae , cefotaxime , acinetobacter baumannii , tobramycin , piperacillin , imipenem , ceftazidime , carbapenem , piperacillin/tazobactam , microbiology and biotechnology , antibiotics , pseudomonas aeruginosa , gentamicin , biology , antibiotic resistance , escherichia coli , bacteria , biochemistry , gene , genetics
We prospectively evaluated EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing methodology for susceptibility testing directly from blood culture bottles in comparison to CLSI disk-diffusion method. Methodology: During May-November 2019, positively flagged blood culture bottles showing Gram-negative micro-organisms were simultaneously processed by rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and CLSI methodology. Antibiotics tested were cefotaxime, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, gentamicin, tobramycin and trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole. Results: Overall, 80 isolates identified as Escherichia coli (n = 24, 30%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 15, 18.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 16, 20%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 25, 31.2%) were included. Categorical agreements  of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing at 4-, 6- and 8-hour reading times were 88.1% (304/345), 90.8% (425/468) and 92.3% (467/506), respectively. Major Error rates were 14% (21/150), 4.9% (10/206) and 4/236 (1.7%), whereas Very Major Error rates were 1.1% (2/177), 1.3% (3/232) and 3.3% (8/243), respectively. Results categorized as “Area of Technical Uncertainty” were significantly lower at 8-hour {10.2% (39/384) vs 5.2% (28/534), 4- vs 8-hour, p = 0.003, Fischer’s exact test}. Conclusions: Except for a slightly higher Very major error rate, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing at 8-hour is equivalent to Disk-diffusion method (CLSI-M100) using CLSI-M52 criteria for equivalence: (Categorical agreement ≥ 90%, Very major error ≤ 1.5% and Major error ≤ 3%). Poor Categorical agreements at all reading times were noted for piperacillin-tazobactam, ciprofloxacin and E. coli. Performance of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing methodology in resource limited settings brings unique challenge of identifying micro-organisms within 8 hours. We suggest reading and reporting of results at a single time point using rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing method i.e. at 8-hour.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom