» Articles » PMID: 24072497

Rapid Detection of Resistance in Staphylococcus Aureus by Using Quicolor ES

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2013 Sep 28
PMID 24072497
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Traditional microbiological methods are dependent on the growth of microorganisms, and hence require prolonged periods. The methods used to detect resistance in Staphylococcus aureus should have high sensitivity and specificity, yet provide results in a timely manner. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Quicolor (QC) ES(®) agar for the rapid detection of resistance in S. aureus. We evaluated 100 clinical S. aureus isolates. Resistance detection was performed using traditional microbiological methods. Methicillin resistance detection was evaluated using traditional and molecular microbiological methods. Traditional antibiotic susceptibility testing methods, such as disc diffusion, were conducted using QC ES and Mueller-Hinton (MH) media. The plates were incubated at 36 °C for 5, 6 and 24 h. Rapid results obtained using QC ES agar after 5 h of incubation were consistent with those using the overnight procedure with MH agar for 83 of the 100 S. aureus (including methicillin-susceptible S. aureus) strains. However, the correlation for oxacillin between MH (24 h) and QC ES (5 h) was not satisfactory (r = 0.770). The total agreement between QC ES and MH agar was 83% after 5 h, 89% after 6 h, and 94% after 24 h. The accurate and rapid detection of resistance in S. aureus is critical due to the associated therapeutic problems and infection control measures. We believe that the use of QC ES for S. aureus will reduce the delay in resistance detection, thus providing physicians and infection control practitioners with early information for better management.

Citing Articles

Is rapid antibacterial susceptibility testing medium reliable for routine laboratory practices?.

Yagmur G, Ercal B, Mengeloglu Z, Mutlu Sariguzel F, Berk E, Saglam D Pak J Med Sci. 2015; 31(2):351-4.

PMID: 26101489 PMC: 4476340. DOI: 10.12669/pjms.312.6683.

References
1.
Koseoglu O, Sayin Kutlu S, Cevahir N . [Prevalence and risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization among outpatients undergoing hemodialysis treatment]. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2012; 46(1):106-12. View

2.
Ribeiro J, Vieira F, King T, DArezzo J, Boyce J . Misclassification of susceptible strains of Staphylococcus aureus as methicillin-resistant S. aureus By a rapid automated susceptibility testing system. J Clin Microbiol. 1999; 37(5):1619-20. PMC: 84854. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.37.5.1619-1620.1999. View

3.
Koydemir H, Kulah H, Ozgen C, Alp A, Hascelik G . MEMS biosensors for detection of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Biosens Bioelectron. 2011; 29(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2011.07.071. View

4.
Cesur S, Yildiz E, Irmak H, Aygun Z, Karakoc E, Kinikli S . [Evaluation of oxacillin resistance screening agar and chromogenic MRSA agar media for the detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates]. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2010; 44(2):279-84. View

5.
Baldessarini R, Finklestein S, Arana G . The predictive power of diagnostic tests and the effect of prevalence of illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983; 40(5):569-73. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790050095011. View