六种检测肠杆菌科超广谱β-内酰胺酶方法的性能评价  

Evaluating Performance of 6 Methods for Detecting Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases among Enterobacteriaceae

作　　者：史跃杰[1] 王海颖[1] 杨玉林[1] 

机构地区：[1]河南省中医院检验科,郑州450002

出　　处：《现代检验医学杂志》2008年第3期31-35,共5页Journal of Modern Laboratory Medicine

摘　　要：目的对MicroScan,Phoenix,VITEK 2自动化微生物系统和3种传统表型试验方法检测超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ES-BLs)进行性能评价。方法以分子生物学方法为参考,使用MicroScan,Phoenix,VITEK 2自动化微生物系统和纸片接近法、双纸片增效法、Etest ESBL对65株肠杆菌进行ESBLs检测。结果Phoenix灵敏度最高(97.9%),但特异性最差(52.9%);VITEK 2具有较高的敏感度(89.6%)和特异性(76.5%);在传统表型试验中,双纸片增效法具有最高的敏感度(97.9%)和特异性(94.1%)。结论三种自动化微生物系统检测ESBLs方法性能有较大差异,特异性不高;传统表型试验特异性优于自动化系统;如果任一自动化系统筛选出怀疑ESBLs阳性,建议用双纸片增效法试验或ESBLs专用板进行确认。Objective To evaluate the performance of MicroScan,Phoenix,VITEK 2 and 3 conventional test methods for detection of ESBLs. Methods To detect ESBLs in 65 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae by MicroScan,Phoenix,VITEK 2, DAM,DDS,Eest ESBLs and molecular-biochemical methods which were used as the reference method. Results The system with the highest sensitivity was the Phoenix（97.9%）,but its specificity was the lowest （52.9%）;VITEK 2 had higher sensitivity（89.6%） and specificity（76.5%）;DDS had the highest sensitivity（97.9%） and specificity（94. 1%） in conventional testmethods. Conclusion The performance of detection of ESBLs were big difference among 3 Automated Microbiology Systems with low specificity. The specificity of conventional test methods were better than Automated Microbiology Systems. Recommend to use DDS or ESBLs specific panels for confirmation once an organism is reported positive for ESBLs by any of the Automated Microbiology Systems.

关 键 词：自动化微生物系统 传统表型试验 Β-内酰胺酶 ESBLS 

分 类 号：R378.2[医药卫生—病原生物学] R446.5[医药卫生—基础医学]