Chrome Extension
WeChat Mini Program
Use on ChatGLM

Performance evaluation of the Becton Dickinson Kiestra? IdentifA/SusceptA

Damien Jacot, Garance Sarton-Loheac, Alix T. Coste, Claire Bertelli, Gilbert Greub, Guy Prod'hom, Antony Croxatto

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION(2021)

Cited 4|Views21
No score
Abstract
Objectives: New automated modules are required to provide fully automated solutions in diagnostic microbiology laboratories. We evaluated the performance of a Becton Dickinson Kiestra (TM) IdentifA/SusceptA prototype for MALDI-TOF identification (ID) and Phoenix (TM) antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST). Methods: The performance of the IdentifA/SusceptA coupled prototype was compared with manual processing for MALDI-TOF ID on 1302 clinical microbial isolates or ATCC strains and for Phoenix (TM) M50 AST on 484 strains, representing 61 species. Results: Overall, the IdentifA exhibited similar ID performances than manual spotting. Higher performances were observed for Gram-negative bacteria with an ID at the species level (score >2) of 96.5% (369/382) and 86.9% (334/384), respectively. A significantly better performance was observed with the IdentifA (95.2%, 81/85) compared with manual spotting (75.2%, 64/85) from colonies on MacConkey agar. Contrariwise, the IdentifA exhibited lower ID performances at the species level than manual processing for streptococci (76.1%, 96/126 compared with 92%, 115/125), coagulase-negative staphylococci (73.3%, 44/60 compared with 90%, 54/60) and yeasts (41.3%, 19/46 compared with 78.2%, 36/46). Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci were similarly identified by the two approaches, with ID rates of 92% (65/70) for the IdentifA and 92.7%, (64/69) for manual processing and 94.8%, (55/58) for the IdentifA and 98.2%, (57/58) for manual processing, respectively. The SusceptA exhibited an AST overall essential agreement of 98.82% (6863/6945), a category agreement of 98.86% (6866/6945),1.05% (6/570) very major errors, 0.16% (10/6290) major errors, and 0.91% (63/6945) minor errors compared to the reference AST. Conclusions: Overall, the automated IdentifA/SusceptA exhibited high ID and AST performances. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
More
Translated text
Key words
AST,Automation,IdentifA,Identification,Kiestra,SusceptA
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined