Korean J Clin Microbiol.  2009 Dec;12(4):193-200.

Comparison of the MicroScan(R) Combo Panel Synergies plus with the MicroScan(R) Conventional Combo Panel for Diagnostic Performance of Gram-negative and Gram-positive Bacteria

• Uh Y
• Jang IH
• Lee KS
• Kwon O
• Yoon KJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND
To access the clinical usefulness of MicroScan(R) Synergies plus Combo Panels (Siemens, USA) for the identification and antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) of Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) and Gram-positive cocci (GPC), we compared MicroScan(R) Synergies plus Combo Panels with MicroScan(R) conventional Combo Panels.
METHODS
One-hundred four isolates of GNB were simultaneously tested with MicroScan(R) Synergies plus Neg Combo Type 2 Panel (SINC2) and MicroScan(R) Neg Combo Panel Type 44 (NC44). One-hundred isolates of GPC were simultaneously tested with MicroScan(R) Synergies plus Pos Combo 3 Panel (SIPC3) and MicroScan(R) Pos Combo 1A (PC1A).
RESULTS
Of the GNB isolates, agreement rate of identification between SINC2 and NC44 were 92.3% to the species level and 93.3% to the genus level. Of the GPC isolates, agreement rate of identification between SIPC3 and PC1A were 85.0% to the species level and 100% to the genus level. Of the GNB isolates, agreement rate of AST according to antimicrobial agents between SINC2 and NC44 ranged from 86.5% to 100%. Among GPC isolates, agreement rate of AST according to antimicrobial agents between SIPC3 and PC1A were higher than 96.0% with the exception of gentamicin and quinupristin-dalfopristin.
CONCLUSION
Compared with MicroScan(R) conventional Combo Panels (NC44, PC1A), MicroScan(R) Synergies plus Combo Panels (SINC2, SIPC3) showed high agreement rate of identification and AST, and had the advantage of more rapid reporting.

Keyword

MicroScan(R); Identification; Antimicrobial susceptibility test

MeSH Terms

Anti-Infective Agents
Gentamicins
Gram-Negative Bacteria
Gram-Positive Bacteria
Gram-Positive Cocci
Imidazoles
Nitro Compounds
Virginiamycin
Anti-Infective Agents
Gentamicins
Imidazoles
Nitro Compounds
Virginiamycin

Reference

1. Chong Y, Lee K. Present situation of antimicrobial resistance in Korea. J Infect Chemother. 2000; 6:189–95.

2. Uh Y, Cho HM, Jang IH, Yoon KJ, Seo DM. Identification system of nonfermentative gram negative bacilli using microplate. Korean J Clin Microbiol. 2002; 5:26–34.

3. Kim M, Heo SR, Choi SH, Kwon H, Park JS, Seong MW, et al. Comparison of the MicroScan, VITEK 2, and Crystal GP with 16S rRNA sequencing and MicroSeq 500 v2.0 analysis for coagulase-negative Staphylococci. BMC Microbiol. 2008; 8:233.

4. Kulah C, Aktas E, Comert F, Ozlu N, Akyar I, Ankarali H. Detecting imipenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii by automated systems (BD Phoenix, Microscan WalkAway, Vitek 2); high error rates with Microscan WalkAway. BMC Infect Dis. 2009; 9:30.

5. Chong Y, Lee K, et al. eds. Diagnostic Microbiology. 4th ed.Seoul: Seoheung Publishing Company;2009. p. 285–354.

6. Chong Y, Lee K, et al. eds. Diagnostic Microbiology. 4th ed.Seoul: Seoheung Publishing Company;2009. : 516.

7. O'Hara CM. Manual and automated instrumentation for identification of Enterobacteriaceae and other aerobic gram-negative bacilli. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005; 18:147–62.

8. Jeon H. MicroScan^Ⓡ new product information. MicroScan^Ⓡ user meeting program guide. Seoul: Siemens;2009.

9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Interpretive criteria for identification of bacteria and fungi by DNA target sequencing. MM18-A. Wayne, PA; CLSI,. 2008.

10. Snyder JW, Munier GK, Johnson CL. Direct comparison of the BD phoenix system with the MicroScan WalkAway system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermentative gram-negative organisms. J Clin Microbiol. 2008; 46:2327–33.

11. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Approved guideline M23-A2. Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters. 2nd ed.Wayne, PA: NCCLS;2001.