These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of phenotypic tests for the detection of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a low prevalence country.
    Author: Samuelsen O, Buarø L, Giske CG, Simonsen GS, Aasnaes B, Sundsfjord A.
    Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother; 2008 Apr; 61(4):827-30. PubMed ID: 18227087.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate four phenotypic tests for the detection of metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a low MBL prevalence setting. METHODS: Sixty clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa resistant to imipenem and/or meropenem and seven MBL-positive control strains were examined by: (i) MBL Etest; (ii) combined imipenem discs supplemented with EDTA (IPM-EDTA); (iii) beta-lactam discs on dipicolinic acid plates (DF-DIPI); and (iv) the Cica-beta test. Spectrophotometric analysis of crude cell extracts for imipenem hydrolysis along with consensus PCRs for bla(VIM) and bla(IMP) was used as reference methods. RESULTS: Two clinical isolates (3%) were MBL-positive. The MBL Etest and IPM-EDTA test scored positive for all MBL-positive isolates, but showed specificities of 86% and 91%, and positive predictive values (PPVs) of only 20% and 29%, respectively. Adding resistance to ceftazidime (MIC >8 mg/L) as a criterion for MBL testing would reduce the number of isolates to be screened by 50% and increase the PPVs of the MBL Etest and IMP-EDTA test to 29% and 40%, respectively. The Cica-beta test correctly identified all MBL-negative isolates, but misidentified one MBL-positive clinical isolate as an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producer and one as inconclusive (producing multiple beta-lactamases). No reliable breakpoints could be defined for the DF-DIPI test due to overlapping inhibition zone diameters for MBL-positive and -negative isolates. CONCLUSIONS: None of the phenotypic tests were optimal due to low sensitivity or specificity, resulting in low PPVs. Including ceftazidime resistance to the MBL-screening criteria would significantly improve the performance of the MBL Etest and IPM-EDTA disc test.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]