Comparison of Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Test Method Directly from Blood Culture Bottle with Standard Disc Diffusion Method

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid57223034692en_US
dc.authorscopusid8709583700en_US
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, B.H.
dc.contributor.authorÖksüz, Ş.
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-23T16:07:30Z
dc.date.available2024-08-23T16:07:30Z
dc.date.issued2024en_US
dc.departmentDüzce Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim: Early determination of antimicrobial susceptibility of sepsis pathogens is important. In this study, we aimed to compare the standard disc diffusion method with the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) method performed directly from blood culture bottles. Material and Methods: Bacteria isolated from samples that gave a positive signal on the blood culture device between April 2019 and September 2019 were included in the study, and antimicrobial susceptibilities were determined by the standard disc diffusion method and the RAST method. Categorical agreement, small error, large error, very large error, and area of technical uncertainty ratios were recorded. Results: A total of 103 bacteria including 19 S. aureus, 10 Enterococcus spp. and 24 E. coli, 24 K. pneumoniae, 13 P. aeruginosa, and 13 A. baumannii were included in the study. When the RAST method was compared with the standard disc diffusion method, 100% agreement was found between the methods against imipenem, meropenem, gentamicin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in E. coli isolates at all hours evaluated, and against meropenem in K. pneumoniae isolates at the 6th and 8th hour. For S. aureus and P. aeruginosa isolates, very major errors were found in the RAST results. For A. baumannii isolates, 100% agreement between methods was observed for many antibiotics. Conclusion: It was concluded that the RAST method is a simple and inexpensive test for life-threatening infections such as sepsis. It was also felt that similar studies should be carried out with a large number of isolates, as compliance rates vary depending on the bacteria tested. © 2024, Duzce University Medical School. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipDüzce Üniversitesi, (2019/21); Düzce Üniversitesien_US
dc.identifier.doi10.18678/dtfd.1379737
dc.identifier.endpage27en_US
dc.identifier.issn1307-671X
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85192445973en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage21en_US
dc.identifier.trdizinid1232345en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.18678/dtfd.1379737
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1232345
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/14697
dc.identifier.volume26en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizinen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherDuzce University Medical Schoolen_US
dc.relation.ispartofDuzce Medical Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectBacteremiaen_US
dc.subjectblood cultureen_US
dc.subjectdisc diffusion antimicrobial testsen_US
dc.subjectamikacinen_US
dc.subjectantibiotic agenten_US
dc.subjectcefepimeen_US
dc.subjectcefotaximeen_US
dc.subjectceftazidimeen_US
dc.subjectceftriaxoneen_US
dc.subjectciprofloxacinen_US
dc.subjectclindamycinen_US
dc.subjectcotrimoxazoleen_US
dc.subjecterythromycinen_US
dc.subjectfosfomycinen_US
dc.subjectgentamicinen_US
dc.subjectimipenemen_US
dc.subjectlevofloxacinen_US
dc.subjectlinezoliden_US
dc.subjectmeropenemen_US
dc.subjectnitrofurantoinen_US
dc.subjectnorfloxacinen_US
dc.subjectpiperacillin plus tazobactamen_US
dc.subjecttigecyclineen_US
dc.subjecttobramycinen_US
dc.subjectvancomycinen_US
dc.subjectAcinetobacter baumanniien_US
dc.subjectantibiotic sensitivityen_US
dc.subjectantimicrobial activityen_US
dc.subjectArticleen_US
dc.subjectbacterial growthen_US
dc.subjectbacterium identificationen_US
dc.subjectbacterium isolateen_US
dc.subjectbacterium isolationen_US
dc.subjectblood cultureen_US
dc.subjectcarbapenemase producing Enterobacteriaceaeen_US
dc.subjectcontrolled studyen_US
dc.subjectdisk diffusionen_US
dc.subjectEnterococcusen_US
dc.subjectEscherichia colien_US
dc.subjectKlebsiella pneumoniaeen_US
dc.subjectminimum inhibitory concentrationen_US
dc.subjectnonhumanen_US
dc.subjectPseudomonas aeruginosaen_US
dc.subjectradioallergosorbent testen_US
dc.subjectsepsisen_US
dc.subjectStaphylococcus aureusen_US
dc.titleComparison of Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Test Method Directly from Blood Culture Bottle with Standard Disc Diffusion Methoden_US
dc.title.alternativeKan Kültürü Şişesinden Doğrudan Yapılan Hızlı Antibiyotik Duyarlılık Testi Yönteminin Standart Disk Difüzyon Yöntemi ile Karşılaştırılmasıen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu