Advertisement

Evaluation of the Alfred AST® system for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing directly from positive blood cultures

  • Carlos Sánchez-CarrilloEmail author
  • Paula Pescador
  • Rosa Ricote
  • Julia Fuentes
  • Carmen Losada
  • Ana Candela
  • Emilia Cercenado
Original Article

Abstract

To assess the concordance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing results obtained by the Alfred AST® system performed directly from positive blood cultures in comparison with the standard susceptibility test results performed from isolated colonies by an automated broth microdilution method and to determine the applicability of Alfred AST® system in the routine of our blood culture laboratory. This system is based on the detection of growth by turbidimetry through a technology based on light scattering. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed directly from positive bottles by the Alfred AST® system (Alifax, Padova, Italy). The broth microdilution method (MicroScan, Beckman Coulter, CA, USA) performed to the isolates was considered the standard for comparison. We evaluated 115 significant episodes of bacteremia produced by 51 Gram-negative Enterobacterales, 8 Pseudomonas spp., 2 non-fermenting Gram-negative rods, 7 Staphylococcus aureus, 23 coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, 12 Enterococcus spp., and 12 Streptococcus spp. We performed 828 susceptibility determinations with a categorical agreement with the standard method of 97.1%. Only 24 errors (2.9%) were detected. It should be pointed out that for staphylococci and glycopeptides the correlation was only 87% and for non-fermenting Gram-negative rods and piperacillin/tazobactam was only 88.9%. Time to get antibiogram results by Alfred AST® system was 5 versus 48 h for the standard microdilution method from the isolated colonies. The Alfred AST® system is a useful and rapid method to obtain antimicrobial susceptibility results within the same work shift after blood culture positivity.

Keywords

Blood cultures Rapid antimicrobial testing Sepsis Bactec FX Bacteremia Alfred 60AST 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was presented in part at the XX Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (SEIMC), May 2016, Barcelona, Spain.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Baron EJ, Weinstein MP, Dunne WM, Yagupsky P, Welch DF, Wilson DM (2005) In: Coordinating ed., Baron EJ (eds) Cumitech 1C: blood cultures IV. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kirn TJ, Weinstein MP (2013) Update on blood cultures: how to obtain, process, report, and interpret. Clin Microbiol Infect 19:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Munson EL, Diekema DJ, Beekmann SE, Chapin KC, Doern GV (2003) Detection and treatment of bloodstream infection: laboratory reporting and antimicrobial management. J Clin Microbiol 41:495–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Angela MH, Newton D, Kunapuli A, Gandhi TN, Washer LL, Isip J et al (2013) Impact of rapid organism identification via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight combined with antimicrobial stewardship team intervention in adult patients with bacteremia and candidemia. Clin Infect Dis 57:1237–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauer KA, West JE, Balada-Llasat JM, Pancholi P, Stevenson KB, Goff DA (2010) An antimicrobial stewardship program’s impact with rapid polymerase chain reaction methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus/S. aureus blood culture test in patients with S. aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 51:1076–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perez KK, Olsen RJ, Musick WL, Cernoch PL, Davis JR, Land GA et al (2013) Integrating rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial stewardship significantly decreases hospital costs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:1247–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    York MK, Henry M, Gilligan P (2007) Blood cultures. Clinical detection and interpretation. In: García LS (ed) Clinical microbiology procedures handbook, Third edn. ASM Press, Washington, DC, pp 3.4.1.1–3.4.1.20Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark RB, Lewinski MA, Loeffelholz MJ, Tibbetts RJ (2009) In: Coordinating ed., Sharp SE (eds) Cumitech 31a, verification and validation procedures in the clinical microbiology laboratory. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swenson JM, Anderson KF, Lonsway DR, Thompson A, McAllister SK, Limbago BM et al (2009) Accuracy of commercial and reference susceptibility testing methods for detecting vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 47:2013–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruzel MC, Lewis CT, Welsh KJ, Lewis EM, Dundas NE, Mohr JF et al (2011) Determination of vancomycin and daptomycin MICs by different testing methods for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 49:2272–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rybak MJ, Vidaillac C, Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Salimnia H, Briski LE et al (2013) Evaluation of vancomycin susceptibility testing for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: comparison of Etest and three automated testing methods. J Clin Microbiol 51:2077–2081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodríguez-Sánchez B, Sánchez-Carrillo C, Ruiz A, Marín M, Cercenado E, Rodríguez-Créixems M et al (2014) Direct identification of pathogens from positive blood cultures using matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Clin Microbiolol Infect 20:421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romero-Gómez MP, Gómez-Gil R, Paño-Pardo JR, Mignorance J (2012) Identification and susceptibility testing of microorganism by direct inoculation from positive blood culture bottles by combining MALDI-TOF and Vitek-2 compact is rapid and effective. J Inf Secur 65:513–520Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beal SG, Ciurca J, Smith G, John J, Lee F, Doern CD et al (2013) Evaluation of the Nanosphere Verigene gram-positive blood culture assay with the VersaTREK blood culture system and assessment of possible impact on selected patients. J Clin Microbiol 51:3988–3992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bork JT, Leekha S, Heil EL, Zhao L, Badamas R, Johnson JK (2015) Rapid testing using the Verigene gram-negative blood culture nucleic acid test in combination with antimicrobial stewardship intervention against gram-negative bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:1588–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ward C, Stocker K, Begum J, Wade P, Ebrahimsa U, Goldenberg SD (2015) Performance evaluation of the Verigene® (Nanosphere) and FilmArray® (BioFire®) molecular assays for identification of causative organisms in bacterial bloodstream infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Sánchez-Carrillo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paula Pescador
    • 1
  • Rosa Ricote
    • 1
  • Julia Fuentes
    • 1
  • Carmen Losada
    • 1
  • Ana Candela
    • 1
  • Emilia Cercenado
    • 1
  1. 1.Servicio de Microbiología ClínicaHospital General Universitario Gregorio MarañónMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations