Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1997 Aug;35(8):2115–2119. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.8.2115-2119.1997

Multicenter laboratory evaluation of the bioMérieux Vitek antimicrobial susceptibility testing system with 11 antimicrobial agents versus members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

G V Doern 1, A B Brueggemann 1, R Perla 1, J Daly 1, D Halkias 1, R N Jones 1, M A Saubolle 1
PMCID: PMC229914  PMID: 9230393

Abstract

A four-center study in which a total of 1,082 recent clinical isolates of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were examined versus 11 antimicrobial agents with the bioMérieux Vitek susceptibility test system (Hazelwood, Mo.) and the GNS-F6 card was conducted. In addition, a challenge set consisting of the same 200 organisms was examined in each of the four participating laboratories. Results obtained with the Vitek system were compared to MICs determined by a standardized broth microdilution method. For purposes of comparison, susceptibility categories (susceptible, intermediate, or resistant) were assigned on the basis of the results of both methods. The result of the broth microdilution test was considered definitive. The total category error rate with the Vitek system and the recent clinical isolates (11,902 organism-antimicrobial comparisons) was 4.5%, i.e., 1.7% very major errors, 0.9% major errors, and 1.9% minor errors. The total category error rate calculated from tests performed with the challenge set (i.e., 8,800 organism-antimicrobial comparisons) was 5.9%, i.e., 2.2% very major errors, 1.1% major errors, and 2.6% minor errors. Very major error rates higher than the totals were noted with Enterobacter cloacae versus ampicillin-sulbactam, aztreonam, ticarcillin, and ticarcillin-clavulanate and with P. aeruginosa versus mezlocillin, ticarcillin, and ticarcillin-clavulanate. Major error rates higher than the averages were observed with Proteus mirabilis versus imipenem and with Klebsiella pneumoniae versus ofloxacin. Excellent overall interlaboratory reproducibility was observed with the Vitek system. The importance of inoculum size as a primary determinant in the accuracy of susceptibility test results with the Vitek system was clearly demonstrated in this study. Specifically, when an inoculum density fourfold higher than that recommended by the manufacturer was used, high rates of false resistance results were obtained with cell wall-active antimicrobial agents versus both the Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (124.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Biedenbach D. J., Jones R. N. Interpretive errors using an automated system for the susceptibility testing of imipenem and aztreonam. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995 Jan;21(1):57–60. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(94)00069-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bryce E. A., Zemcov S. J., Clarke A. M. Species identification and antibiotic resistance patterns of the enterococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991 Sep;10(9):745–747. doi: 10.1007/BF01972500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Coudron P. E., Jones D. L., Dalton H. P., Archer G. L. Evaluation of laboratory tests for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Nov;24(5):764–769. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.5.764-769.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Denys G. A., Sahm D. F. Modification of the Sceptor system for rapid detection of methicillin-resistant staphylococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Sep;24(3):462–464. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.3.462-464.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Doern G. V., Torres B. B., Jankins M., Jones R. N. Accurate characterization of ofloxacin susceptibility with Enterobacteriaceae using a modified GNS F6 card and the bioMerieux Vitek System. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996 Jul;25(3):133–135. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(96)00127-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fekete T., Tumah H., Woodwell J., Truant A., Satishchandran V., Axelrod P., Kreter B. A comparison of serial plate agar dilution, Bauer-Kirby disk diffusion, and the Vitek AutoMicrobic system for the determination of susceptibilities of Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp., and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ten antimicrobial agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994 Apr;18(4):251–258. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(94)90028-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hansen S. L., Walsh T. J. Detection of intrinsically resistant (heteroresistant) Staphylococcus aureus with the Sceptor and AutoMicrobic systems. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Feb;25(2):412–415. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.2.412-415.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Henry D. A., Smith J. A., Jones M. A. Comparison of the AMS gram-negative susceptibility flex panel GNS-V and agar disk diffusion for testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Mar;25(3):586–587. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.3.586-587.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Henry D., Kunzer L., Ngui-Yen J., Smith J. Comparative evaluation of four systems for determining susceptibility of gram-positive organisms. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Apr;23(4):718–724. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.4.718-724.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hindler J. A., Bruckner D. A. Evaluation of the AutoMicrobic system for susceptibility testing of aminoglycosides and gram-negative bacilli. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Mar;25(3):546–550. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.3.546-550.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Joyce L. F., Downes J., Stockman K., Andrew J. H. Comparison of five methods, including the PDM Epsilometer test (E test), for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Oct;30(10):2709–2713. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.10.2709-2713.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Katsanis G. P., Spargo J., Ferraro M. J., Sutton L., Jacoby G. A. Detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli strains producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Mar;32(3):691–696. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.3.691-696.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kiehlbauch J., Kendle J. M., Carlson L. G., Schoenknecht F. D., Plorde J. J. Automated antibiotic susceptibility testing: comparative evaluation of four commercial systems and present state. Clin Lab Med. 1989 Jun;9(2):319–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lally R. T., Ederer M. N., Woolfrey B. F. Evaluation of the newly modified AutoMicrobic system gram-positive susceptibility-MIC card for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Feb;23(2):387–387. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.2.387-.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Marshall S. A. Serious interpretive error among three commercial systems for susceptibility testing of aztreonam. Aztreonam Study Group. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;22(3):249–251. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(95)00064-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Metchock B., McGowan J. E., Jr Evaluation of the Vitek GPS-TA card for laboratory detection of high-level gentamicin and streptomycin resistance in enterococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Dec;29(12):2870–2872. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.12.2870-2872.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Peterson E. M., Evans K. D., Shigei J. T., Pezzlo M. T., de la Maza L. M. Evaluation of four anti-microbic susceptibility testing systems for gram-negative bacilli. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986 Nov;86(5):619–623. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/86.5.619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Reiber N. E., Kelly M. T., Latimer J. M., Tison D. L., Hysmith R. M. Comparison of the Cathra Repliscan II, the AutoMicrobic system Gram-Negative General Susceptibility-Plus Card, and the Micro-Media System Fox Panel for dilution susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Jun;21(6):959–962. doi: 10.1128/jcm.21.6.959-962.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sahm D. F., Boonlayangoor S., Iwen P. C., Baade J. L., Woods G. L. Factors influencing determination of high-level aminoglycoside resistance in Enterococcus faecalis. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Sep;29(9):1934–1939. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.9.1934-1939.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sahm D. F., Boonlayangoor S., Schulz J. E. Detection of high-level aminoglycoside resistance in enterococci other than Enterococcus faecalis. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Nov;29(11):2595–2598. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.11.2595-2598.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sahm D. F., Kissinger J., Gilmore M. S., Murray P. R., Mulder R., Solliday J., Clarke B. In vitro susceptibility studies of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Sep;33(9):1588–1591. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.9.1588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sahm D. F., Olsen L. In vitro detection of enterococcal vancomycin resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Sep;34(9):1846–1848. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.9.1846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Smith J. A., Henry D. A., Bourgault A. M., Bryan L., Harding G. J., Hoban D. J., Horsman G. B., Marrie T., Turgeon P. Comparison of agar disk diffusion, microdilution broth, and agar dilution for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Sep;25(9):1741–1746. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.9.1741-1746.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Szeto S., Louie M., Low D. E., Patel M., Simor A. E. Comparison of the new MicroScan Pos MIC Type 6 panel and AMS-Vitek Gram Positive Susceptibility Card (GPS-TA) for detection of high-level aminoglycoside resistance in Enterococcus species. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Jun;29(6):1258–1259. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.6.1258-1259.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Visser M. R., Bogaards L., Rozenberg-Arska M., Verhoef J. Comparison of the autoSCAN-W/A and Vitek Automicrobic systems for identification and susceptibility testing of bacteria. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992 Nov;11(11):979–984. doi: 10.1007/BF01967786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Weissmann D., Spargo J., Wennersten C., Ferraro M. J. Detection of enterococcal high-level aminoglycoside resistance with MicroScan freeze-dried panels containing newly modified medium and Vitek Gram-Positive Susceptibility cards. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Jun;29(6):1232–1235. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.6.1232-1235.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Wellstood S. Comparative evaluation of the MRS test. A 4 to 6 hour screening test for detecting oxacillin-resistant staphylococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989 Sep-Oct;12(5):395–399. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(89)90109-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Woods G. L., Hall G. S., Rutherford I., Pratt K. J., Knapp C. C. Detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Sep;24(3):349–352. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.3.349-352.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Woolfrey B. F., Lally R. T., Ederer M. N., Quall C. O. Evaluation of the AutoMicrobic system for identification and susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Dec;20(6):1053–1059. doi: 10.1128/jcm.20.6.1053-1059.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES