Introduction: Early and appropriated antimicrobial therapy showed to positively impact on the clinical improvement of septic patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate E-test methodology to obtain rapid results of antimicrobial susceptibility, starting directly from blood culture bottles positive to Gram-negative monomicrobial flora. Materials and methods: One hundred and five blood culture samples positive to Gram-negative rods at the microscopic examination were collected. Bacterial identification from early subculture on blood agar after 4 h incubation and rapid direct E-test from blood culture broth were performed on every sample. Antibiotics MIC were achieved after 5-6 h of incubation. Resulting MIC values were compared with those obtained with reference E-test from the overnight subculture. Categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) were evaluated. Results: Comparison between rapid direct E-test and reference E-test showed CA ranging from 95.1 to 100 % and 88.2 to 100 % for Enterobacteriaceae (EB) and for non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli, respectively. Rapid direct E-test showed an overall EA of 80.1 %, revealing different EA rates for the tested antibiotics. Among carbapenemase-producing EB, CA of 87.5 % and EA of 75.5 % for MP were achieved. Discussion: The same-day communication of the antimicrobial susceptibility represents an important challenge in the multidrug-resistance era. Despite not being able to anticipate actual MIC values, the rapid direct E-test may be useful to obtain preliminary AST results in 5-6 h, especially if used in association with phenotypic or genotypic tests to identify the main resistance mechanisms.

Assessment of rapid direct E-test on positive blood culture for same-day antimicrobial susceptibility

Gabriele Bianco
First
;
Marco Iannaccone;Matteo Boattini;Rossana Cavallo;Cristina Costa
Last
2019-01-01

Abstract

Introduction: Early and appropriated antimicrobial therapy showed to positively impact on the clinical improvement of septic patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate E-test methodology to obtain rapid results of antimicrobial susceptibility, starting directly from blood culture bottles positive to Gram-negative monomicrobial flora. Materials and methods: One hundred and five blood culture samples positive to Gram-negative rods at the microscopic examination were collected. Bacterial identification from early subculture on blood agar after 4 h incubation and rapid direct E-test from blood culture broth were performed on every sample. Antibiotics MIC were achieved after 5-6 h of incubation. Resulting MIC values were compared with those obtained with reference E-test from the overnight subculture. Categorical agreement (CA) and essential agreement (EA) were evaluated. Results: Comparison between rapid direct E-test and reference E-test showed CA ranging from 95.1 to 100 % and 88.2 to 100 % for Enterobacteriaceae (EB) and for non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli, respectively. Rapid direct E-test showed an overall EA of 80.1 %, revealing different EA rates for the tested antibiotics. Among carbapenemase-producing EB, CA of 87.5 % and EA of 75.5 % for MP were achieved. Discussion: The same-day communication of the antimicrobial susceptibility represents an important challenge in the multidrug-resistance era. Despite not being able to anticipate actual MIC values, the rapid direct E-test may be useful to obtain preliminary AST results in 5-6 h, especially if used in association with phenotypic or genotypic tests to identify the main resistance mechanisms.
2019
50
4
953
959
Antimicrobial susceptibility; E-test; Blood culture; Gram-negative bacilli
Gabriele Bianco ; Marco Iannaccone ; Matteo Boattini ; Rossana Cavallo ; Cristina Costa
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1901444
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact