Scholarlink

<p>Four commercial tests EUMDROXF<sup>®</sup> Sensititre microplates, MTS gradient strips, and disc diffusion were evaluated for imipenem-relebactam susceptibility in 148 ceftazidime and imipenem-resistant <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> strains, using broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference. EUMDROXF<sup>®</sup> Sensititre microplates showed the highest accuracy (CA = 93.2%, EA = 93.9%, and bias difference + 21.8%). While the MTS gradient strips showed acceptable performance (CA = 84.5%; EA = 89.9%, and difference of bias = 21.0%), the disc method misclassified 25.8% (16/62) of the resistant strains. Given these results, considering an Area of Technical Uncertainty (ATU) for disc diffusion (20–24&#xa0;mm) in imipenem-relebactam testing is recommended for <i>P. aeruginosa</i> strains.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation of imipenem-relebactam susceptibility testing in carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: comparison of sensititre microplates, disc diffusion, and MTS gradient strips with broth microdilution

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月13日

查看全文
  • Adrien Biguenet,
  • Léa Devoos,
  • Julie Rousselot,
  • Maxime Bour,
  • Damien Fournier,
  • Katy Jeannot

摘要

Four commercial tests EUMDROXF® Sensititre microplates, MTS gradient strips, and disc diffusion were evaluated for imipenem-relebactam susceptibility in 148 ceftazidime and imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains, using broth microdilution (BMD) as the reference. EUMDROXF® Sensititre microplates showed the highest accuracy (CA = 93.2%, EA = 93.9%, and bias difference + 21.8%). While the MTS gradient strips showed acceptable performance (CA = 84.5%; EA = 89.9%, and difference of bias = 21.0%), the disc method misclassified 25.8% (16/62) of the resistant strains. Given these results, considering an Area of Technical Uncertainty (ATU) for disc diffusion (20–24 mm) in imipenem-relebactam testing is recommended for P. aeruginosa strains.