Identification ofStaphylococcus epidermidis andStaphylococcus hominis from blood cultures by testing susceptibility to desferrioxamine
- 45 Downloads
- 7 Citations
Abstract
Testing susceptibility to desferrioxamine has recently been described as a method for the identification ofStaphylococcus epidermidis. This method was compared to a commercial test and the tube coagulase test for the identification of staphylococci from blood cultures and other fluid specimens. A total of 216 isolates was tested over a 13-month period. Sensitivity of the desferrioxamine test in identifying isolates ofStaphylococcus epidermidis andStaphylococcus hominis was 97.3 %, while specificity was 91.8 %. When isolates displaying discrepant desferrioxamine results were characterized using recently described interpretive criteria, sensitivity and specificity of the desferrioxamine test improved to 100 %. The desferrioxamine test was reliable, inexpensive and simple to perform, and should prove useful in the diagnostic laboratory.
Keywords
Internal Medicine Blood Culture Diagnostic Laboratory Desferrioxamine Commercial TestPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.De Buyser ML, Morvan A, Aubert S, Dilasser F, El Sohl N: Evaluation of a ribosomal RNA gene probe for the identification of species and subspecies within the genusStaphylococcus. Journal of General Microbiology 1992, 138: 889–899.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Kloos WE: Systematic and the natural history of staphylococci. Part I. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 1990, Supplement: 25–37.Google Scholar
- 3.Kloos WE, Lambe DW:Staphylococcus. In: Balows A, Hausler WJ, Herrmann KL, Isenberg HD, Shadomy HJ (ed): Manual of clinical microbiology. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, 1991, p. 222–237.Google Scholar
- 4.Deighton MA, Franklin JC, Spicer WJ, Balkau B: Species identification, antibiotic sensitivity and slime production of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from clinical specimens. Epidemiology and Infection 1988, 101: 99–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Grasmick AE, Naito N, Bruckner DA: Clinical comparison of the AutoMicrobic System Gram-Positive Identification Card, API-Staph-Ident, and conventional methods in the identification of coagulase-negativeStaphylococcus spp. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1983, 18: 1323–1328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gruer LD, Bartlett R, Ayliffe GAJ: Species identification and antibiotic sensitivity of coagulase-negative staphylococci from CAPD peritonitis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1984, 13: 577–583.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Marsik FJ, Brake S: Species identification and susceptibility to 17 antibiotics of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from clinical specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 15: 640–645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Sewell CM, Clarridge JE, Young EJ, Guthrie RK: Clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 16: 236–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Spencer RC: Infections in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Journal of Medical Microbiology 1988, 27: 1–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.West TE, Walshe JJ, Krol CP, Amsterdam D: Staphylococcal peritonitis in patients on continuous peritoneal dialysis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 23: 809–812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Almeida RJ, Jorgensen JH, Johnson JE: Evaluation of the AutoMicrobic System Gram-Positive Identification Card for species identification of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1983, 18: 438–439.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ruoff KL, Ferraro MJ, Jerz ME, Kissling J: Automated identification of gram-positive bacteria. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 16: 1091–1095.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lindsay JA, Riley TV: Susceptibility to desferrioxamine: a new test for the identification ofStaphylococcus epidermidis. Journal of Medical Microbiology 1991, 35: 45–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Boswell TC, Wilcox MH, Spencer RC: Susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci to desferrioxamine. Journal of Hospital Infection 1991, 19: 295–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar