Journal Article

Evaluation of the MicroScan ESBL plus confirmation panel for detection of extended-spectrum β-lactamases in clinical isolates of oxyimino-cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

Enno Stürenburg, Melanie Lang, Matthias A. Horstkotte, Rainer Laufs and Dietrich Mack

in Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Published on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Volume 54, issue 5, pages 870-875
Published in print November 2004 | ISSN: 0305-7453
Published online November 2004 | e-ISSN: 1460-2091 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkh449
Evaluation of the MicroScan ESBL plus confirmation panel for detection of extended-spectrum β-lactamases in clinical isolates of oxyimino-cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

  • Medical Oncology
  • Critical Care

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

Objective: We aimed to assess the performance of the MicroScan ESBL plus confirmation panel using a series of 87 oxyimino-cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacilli of various species.

Methods: Organisms tested included 57 extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) strains comprising Enterobacter aerogenes (3), Enterobacter cloacae (10), Escherichia coli (11), Klebsiella pneumoniae (26), Klebsiella oxytoca (3) and Proteus mirabilis (4). Also included were 30 strains resistant to oxyimino cephalosporins but lacking ESBLs, which were characterized with other resistance mechanisms, such as inherent clavulanate susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp. (4), hyperproduction of AmpC enzyme in Citrobacter freundii (2), E. aerogenes (3), E. cloacae (3), E. coli (4), Hafnia alvei (1) and Morganella morganii (1), production of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamase in K. pneumoniae (3) and E. coli (3) or hyperproduction of K1 enzyme in K. oxytoca (6).

Results: The MicroScan MIC-based clavulanate synergy correctly classified 50 of 57 ESBL strains as ESBL-positive and 23 of 30 non-ESBL strains as ESBL-negative (yielding a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 76.7%, respectively). False negatives among ESBL producers were highest with Enterobacter spp. due to masking interactions between ESBL and AmpC β-lactamases. False-positive classifications occurred in two Acinetobacter spp., one E. coli producing plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamase and two K. oxytoca hyperproducing their chromosomal K1 β-lactamase.

Conclusion: The MicroScan clavulanate synergy test proved to be a valuable tool for ESBL confirmation. However, this test has limitations in detecting ESBLs in Enterobacter spp. and in discriminating ESBL-related resistance from the K1 enzyme and from inherent clavulanate susceptibility in Acinetobacter spp.

Keywords: ESBLs; ESBL detection; ESBL discrimination; MIC-based clavulanate synergy test

Journal Article.  4270 words.  Illustrated.

Subjects: Medical Oncology ; Critical Care

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.