Link to Pubmed [PMID] – 20378278
Pathol. Biol. 2012 Apr;60(2):78-83
AIM OF THE STUDY: Vitek-2™ AIX versus Vitek-2™ PC have different rules for phenotypic interpretation. The aim of this study is to ensure that the raw results determined by these two versions of Vitek-2™ allow biologists to conclude to the same resistance phenotype, but also to evaluate their own phenotypic interpretation system (advanced expert system).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 251 strains of Enterobacteriaceae of different groups and phenotypes was tested. Each strain was studied simultaneously on both types of Vitek-2™ from the same calibrated inoculum. We then compared their resistance phenotype to beta-lactams.
RESULTS: For strains not producing ESBL or CHN, the biologist concluded in 99.3% of cases to the same resistance phenotype by interpreting the raw results of Vitek-2™ AIX versus PC. The phenotypic interpretation of biologist is different from the Vitek-2™ in respectively 40% versus 43% of cases for AIX and PC versions. For multi-resistant strains, the biologist concluded in 100% of cases to the same resistance phenotype by interpreting the raw results of Vitek-2™ AIX versus PC. In 51.5% of cases the biologist use the disk diffusion method (DD). The results of this technique put forward 29% discrepancy with the two types of Vitek-2™. Finally, when Vitek-2™ claims the presence of an ESBL alone, this result is routinely confirmed by DD.
CONCLUSION: The switch from Vitek-2™ AIX to Vitek-2™ PC does not alter the results of the phenotypic interpretation of biologist.