TABLE 4.
Antimicrobial | No. of isolatesb |
EAc (no. [%]) | CAd (no. [%]) | VMEe (no. [%]) | MEf (no. [%]) | mEg (no. [%]) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | R | I | S | ||||||
Cefoxitin screen | 37 | 17 | 0 | 20 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Ciprofloxacin | 37 | 16 | 0 | 21 | 37 (100) | 36 (97.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.7) |
Clindamycin | 37 | 10 | 0 | 27 | 37 (100) | 36 (97.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.7) |
Daptomycin | 37 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 34 (91.9) | 36 (97.3) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.7) | 0 (0) |
Erythromycin | 37 | 20 | 1 | 16 | 36 (97.3) | 36 (97.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.7) |
Gentamicin | 37 | 6 | 2 | 29 | 35 (94.6) | 34 (91.9) | 1 (16.7) | 0 (0) | 2 (5.4) |
Inducible clindamycin resistance | 37 | 12 | 0 | 25 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Linezolid | 36 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 36 (100) | 36 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Nitrofurantoin | 37 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Oxacillin | 37 | 17 | 0 | 20 | 36 (97.3) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Penicillin | 35 | 27 | 0 | 8 | 35 (100) | 35 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Quinupristin-dalfopristin | 37 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Rifampin | 37 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Tigecycline | 37 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | 37 | 15 | 0 | 22 | 37 (100) | 37 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Vancomycin | 37 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 (100) | 36 (97.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.7) |
Total | (98.8) | (98.7) | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Results calculated following resolution of discrepancies after repeat testing.
R, resistant; I, intermediate; S, susceptible.
EA, essential agreement (MIC within ±1 doubling dilution).
CA, categorical agreement.
VME, very major error.
ME, major error.
mE, minor error.