摘要
目的比较新型抗菌药物吸附材料血培养瓶与活性炭吸附材料血培养瓶病原体检出能力的差异。方法根据中山大学肿瘤防治中心常见病原菌分布情况,收集菌谱分离比例居前的临床菌株和ATCC标准菌株共18株,选择相应菌种分别用于模拟未使用抗菌药物治疗和正在进行抗菌药物治疗的患者的血液样本测试,并在模拟抗菌药物治疗的临床血液样本中添加万古霉素、达托霉素、哌拉西林-他唑巴坦和亚胺培南。通过BacT/ALERT检测平台评估2种抗菌药物吸附材料血培养瓶在有、无抗菌药物干扰的情况下对目标病原菌的报阳时间和阳性检出率。结果在无抗菌药物干扰的情况下,除溶血葡萄球菌外,2种吸附材料血培养瓶对常见革兰阳性菌、革兰阴性菌和真菌等18种病原菌的阳性检出率均为100%。新型吸附材料血培养瓶对测试的13个常见菌种的报阳时间显著早于活性炭吸附材料血培养瓶(P<0.05),新型吸附材料需氧瓶的平均报阳时间较活性炭吸附材料需氧瓶短0.72~68.24 h,新型吸附材料厌氧瓶的平均报阳时间较活性炭吸附材料厌氧瓶短0.48~14.48 h。在有抗菌药物干扰的情况下,新型吸附材料血培养瓶对3种菌株的阳性检出率均为100%,高于活性炭吸附材料血培养瓶(33%)。新型吸附材料需氧瓶的平均报阳时间为12.72~18.08 h,厌氧瓶的平均报阳时间为11.76~28.16 h。结论在无抗菌药物干扰的情况下,2种吸附材料血培养瓶对目标病原菌的阳性检出率相同,新型吸附材料血培养瓶的报阳时间较短。在有抗菌药物干扰的情况下,与活性炭吸附材料血培养瓶相比,新型吸附材料血培养瓶具有更高的病原菌检测能力。
Objective To compare and evaluate the ability to detect pathogens between blood culture bottles of new antibiotic adsorption materials and those of activated carbon adsorption materials. Methods According to the common bacterial distribution of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center,18 selected isolates(clinical isolates and ATCC standard isolates) were chosen to simulate patients’ samples with non-antibiotic treatment and antibiotic treatment including vancomycin,daptomycin,imipenem and piperacillin-tazobactam. Those samples were added into blood culture bottles of 2 different types of antibiotic adsorption materials to evaluate their positive rates and detection times in BacT/ALERT system. Results Blood cultures of new antibiotic adsorption material and activated carbon adsorption material showed 100% recovery on 18 pathogens,like Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and yeast,except for Staphylococcus haemolyticus. The time to detection of 13 species of pathogens was faster in new antibiotic adsorption material when compared with activitied carbon adsorption material(P<0.05). The average time to detection in new antibiotic adsorption aerobic material was 0.72-68.24 h,which was faster than that in activated carbon adsorption aerobic material,while the time to detection of new antibiotic adsorption anaerobic material showed 0.48-14.48 h shorter than that of activated carbon adsorption anaerobic material in detecting pathogens. When specific antibiotic added,both new antibiotic adsorption materials showed 100% recovery to 3 pathogens,while the recovery in activated carbon adsorption materials was 33%. The average time to detection was ranged from 12.72 h to 18.08 h in new antibiotic adsorption aerobic material and from 11.76 h to 28.16 h in new antibiotic adsorption anaerobic material.Conclusions In the absence of antibiotic interference,blood cultures with different antibiotic adsorption materials show the same positive rate of target pathogen,and those of new antibiotic adsorption material have a shorter time to detection. In the presence of antibiotic interference,compared with the activated carbon adsorption material,the blood culture bottles of the new antibiotic adsorption material have a higher detection ability of pathogens.
作者
郑炘
黄绮
邢珊
谭肖鹂
戴淑琴
刘万里
刘晓敏
ZHENG Xin;HUANG Qi;XING Shan;TAN Xiaoli;DAI Shuqin;LIU Wanli;LIU Xiaomin(Department of Clinical Laboratory,Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine,Guangzhou 510060,Guangdong,China)
出处
《检验医学》
CAS
2021年第12期1258-1263,共6页
Laboratory Medicine
基金
国家自然科学基金面上项目(81871711)。
关键词
血培养
抗菌药物吸附
病原微生物
阳性检出率
报阳时间
Blood culture
Antibiotic adsorption
Pathogen
Positive detection rate
Time to detection
