Performance evaluation of the Becton Dickinson Kiestra™ IdentifA/SusceptA.

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_85C11972FFBD
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Performance evaluation of the Becton Dickinson Kiestra™ IdentifA/SusceptA.
Périodique
Clinical microbiology and infection
Auteur(s)
Jacot D., Sarton-Lohéac G., Coste A.T., Bertelli C., Greub G., Prod'hom G., Croxatto A.
ISSN
1469-0691 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1198-743X
Statut éditorial
In Press
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: aheadofprint
Résumé
New automated modules are required to provide fully automated solutions in diagnostic microbiology laboratories. We evaluated the performance of a Becton Dickinson Kiestra™ IdentifA/SusceptA prototype for MALDI-TOF identification (ID) and Phoenix <sup>TM</sup> antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST).
The performance of the IdentifA/SusceptA coupled prototype was compared to manual processing for MALDI-TOF ID on 1302 clinical microbial isolates or ATCC strains and for Phoenix <sup>TM</sup> M50 AST on 484 strains, representing 61 species.
Overall, the IdentifA exhibited similar ID performances than manual spotting. Higher performances were observed for Gram-negative bacteria with an ID at the species level (score>2) of 96.5% (369/382) and 86.9% (334/384), respectively. A significant better performance was observed with the IdentifA (95.2%, 81/85) compared to manual spotting (75.2%, 64/85) from colonies on MacConkey agar. Contrariwise, the IdentifA exhibited lower ID performances at the species level than manual processing for streptococci (76.1%, 96/126 compared to 92%, 115/125), coagulase-negative staphylococci (73.3%, 44/60 compared to 90%, 54/60) and yeasts (41.3%, 19/46 compared to 78.2%, 36/46). Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci were similarly identified by the two approaches, with ID rates of 92% (65/70) for the IdentifA and 92.7%, (64/69) for manual processing and 94.8%, (55/58) for the IdentifA and 98.2%, (57/58) for manual processing, respectively. The SusceptA exhibited an AST overall essential agreement of 98.82% (6863/6945), a category agreement of 98.86% (6866/6945), 1.05% (6/570) very major errors, 0.16% (10/6290) major errors, and 0.91% (63/6945) minor errors compared to the reference AST.
Overall, the automated IdentifA/SusceptA exhibited high ID and AST performances.
Mots-clé
AST, Automation, IdentifA, Identification, Kiestra, SusceptA
Pubmed
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
26/10/2020 8:34
Dernière modification de la notice
29/05/2021 6:31
Données d'usage