Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2016 Sep 22;11(9):e0160537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160537

Correction: Clinical Impact of MALDI-TOF MS Identification and Rapid Susceptibility Testing on Adequate Antimicrobial Treatment in Sepsis with Positive Blood Cultures

Alexia Verroken, Lydwine Defourny, Olivier le Polain de Waroux, Leïla Belkhir, Pierre-François Laterre, Michel Delmée, Youri Glupczynski
PMCID: PMC5033485  PMID: 27658295

There are numerical errors in the first and penultimate sentences of the second paragraph of the Results under the subheading “Rapid identification and susceptibility test performances.” The correct paragraph is: βLT performed on 164 BSI (P1 and P2 combined) yielded 24 positive, 139 negative and 1 uninterpretable test result due to an incoherent color change of the chromogenic test. All positive βLT results were found in non-natural AmpC EB isolates displaying third generation cephalosporin resistance by complete AST results and subsequently confirmed as ESBL producers. In 7 cases, βLT yielded false-negative results since complete AST and molecular testing identified 6 AmpC producing Escherichia coli and 1 VIM metallo-beta-lactamase-producing P. aeruginosa, all resistant to third generation cephalosporin. Globally, sensitivity and specificity of βLT were respectively 77.4% and 100%. No erroneous or uninterpretable results were observed with PBP2a testing. Performed on 25 S. aureus BSI in P1 and P2, PBP2a was able to detect all 3 MRSA strains (sensitivity and specificity of 100%). Ultimately, 8 BSI (6 in P1 and 2 in P2) were discarded from outcome analysis due to erroneous/uninterpretable rapid test results.

Tables 1 and 2 appear incorrectly in the published article. Please see the correct Tables 1 and 2 and their captions here.

Table 1. Distribution of microorganisms and main resistances of all bloodstream infections across the three study periods.

3GC, third generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime); AST, antimicrobial susceptibility testing; BSI, bloodstream infection; carbapenem (imipenem, meropenem); ID, identification; P0, pre-intervention period; P1, intervention period 1; P2, intervention period 2. Natural AmpC producers identified during the study periods: Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter cloacae, Hafnia alvei, Serratia marcescens. Non-natural AmpC producers identified during the study periods: Citrobacter koseri, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Salmonella spp.

Microorganism Resistance P0 P1 P2
n BSI (%) n BSI (%) n BSI n BSI n BSI (%) n BSI n BSI
final outcome analysis final outcome analysis with failed ID with failed partial AST final outcome analysis with failed ID with failed partial AST
Gram-positive bacteria 50 (37.3) 40 (35.7) 8 0 44 (28.6) 7 0
Staphylococci 25 22 3 0 24 2 0
  Staphylococcus aureus 14 11 1 0 14 0 0
   methicillin 1 1 0 - 2 - -
  Coagulase negative Staphylococci 11 11 2 0 10 2 0
Enterococci 12 11 1 0 9 1 0
Streptococci 9 7 2 0 10 4 0
 Other Gram-positive bacteria 4 0 2 0 1 0 0
Gram-negative bacteria 77 (57.5) 71 (63.4) 1 6 107 (69.5) 2 2
 Enterobacteriaceae 71 63 0 5 103 1 2
  natural AmpC producers 5 6 0 0 11 0 0
   3GC 2 1 - - 4 - -
   carbapenem 0 0 - - 0 - -
  non-natural AmpC producers 66 57 0 5 92 1 2
   3GC 10 6 - 5 18 0 2
   carbapenem 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
 Non fermenters 6 6 1 1 4 1 0
  Pseudomonas aeruginosa 3 4 0 1 3 1 0
   3GC 0 0 - 1 0 0 -
   carbapenem 0 0 - 1 0 0 -
  Other non fermenters 3 2 1 0 1 0 0
 Other Gram-negative bacteria 0 2 - 0 0 0 0
Anaerobes 6 (4.5) 0 (0.0) 6 0 2 (1.3) 6 0
Yeast 1 (0.7) 1 (0.9) 2 0 1 (0.6) 3 0
TOTAL 134 (100) 112 (100) 17 6 154 (100) 18 2

Table 2. Time to identification and time to partial/complete susceptibility results of all bloodstream infections during pre-intervention and intervention period 1 and 2.

Time to identification
Phase Method BSI (n) Mean time to ID (hours)
P0 TOTAL 134 28.3
Subculture MALDI-TOF MS 134 28.3
Early MALDI-TOF MS - -
Direct MALDI-TOF MS - -
P1 TOTAL 112 10.2
Subculture MALDI-TOF MS 23 15.9
Early MALDI-TOF MS 65 10.6
Direct MALDI-TOF MS 24 3.6
P2 TOTAL 154 10.8
Subculture MALDI-TOF MS 32 17.1
Early MALDI-TOF MS 96 10.7
Direct MALDI-TOF MS 26 4.0
Time to complete susceptibility result
Phase Method BSI (n) Mean time to complete AST result (hours)
P0 TOTAL 134 44.7
Phoenix from subculture 58 46.9
Phoenix from young subculture - -
Direct Phoenix 48 28.3
Manual testing from subculture 28 68.3
Manuel testing from young subculture - -
P1 TOTAL 112 32.4
Phoenix from subculture 28 41.2
Phoenix from young subculture 23 32.2
Direct Phoenix 45 25.6
Manual testing from subculture 7 49.1
Manuel testing from young subculture 9 27.3
P2 TOTAL 154 32.6
Phoenix from subculture 34 41.6
Phoenix from young subculture 81 29.9
Direct Phoenix 22 22.2
Manual testing from subculture 8 52.2
Manuel testing from young subculture 9 30.9
Time to partial susceptibility result
Phase Method BSI (n) Mean time to partial susceptibility testing result (hours)
P1 TOTAL 72 11.8
Culture βLT 20 17.9
Young subculture βLT 29 11.2
Direct βLT 12 3.7
Culture PBP2a 3 15.3
Young subculture PBP2a 6 12
Direct PBP2a 2 2
P2 TOTAL 109 11.7
Culture βLT 29 16.8
Young subculture βLT 51 11.1
Direct βLT 15 3.6
Culture PBP2a 4 20.2
Young subculture PBP2a 9 8.8
Direct PBP2a 1 6

Reference

  • 1.Verroken A, Defourny L, le Polain de Waroux O, Belkhir L, Laterre P-F, Delmée M, et al. (2016) Clinical Impact of MALDI-TOF MS Identification and Rapid Susceptibility Testing on Adequate Antimicrobial Treatment in Sepsis with Positive Blood Cultures. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0156299 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES