Evaluation of autoscan-4 for identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae

Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings

Bacterial identification is challenging in low-resource settings (LRS). We evaluated the MicroScan identification panels (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) as part of Médecins Sans Frontières' Mini-lab Project. The MicroScan Dried Overnight Positive ID Type 3 (PID3) panels for Gram-positive organisms and Dried Overnight Negative ID Type 2 (NID2) panels for Gram-negative organisms were assessed with 367 clinical isolates from LRS. Robustness was studied by inoculating Gram-negative species on the Gram-positive panel and vice versa. The ease of use of the panels and readability of the instructions for use (IFU) were evaluated. Of species represented in the MicroScan database, 94.6% (185/195) of Gram-negative and 85.9% (110/128) of Gram-positive isolates were correctly identified up to species level. Of species not represented in the database (e.g., Streptococcus suis and Bacillus spp.), 53.1% out of 49 isolates were incorrectly identified as non-related bacterial species. Testing of Gram-positive isolates on Gram-negative panels and vice versa (n = 144) resulted in incorrect identifications for 38.2% of tested isolates. The readability level of the IFU was considered too high for LRS. Inoculation of the panels was favorably evaluated, whereas the visual reading of the panels was considered error-prone. In conclusion, the accuracy of the MicroScan identification panels was excellent for Gram-negative species and good for Gram-positive species. Improvements in stability, robustness, and ease of use have been identified to assure adaptation to LRS constraints.

Comparison of MicroScan WalkAway system and Vitek system for identification of gram-negative bacteria

In a prospective side-by-side comparison conducted from September through November 1994, we compared the MicroScan WalkAway system, a conventional biochemical identification system (Dade MicroScan, Inc., Sacramento, Calif.), with the Vitek system (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo. [analysis software version AMS-RO8.2] for the identification of gram-negative bacteria. Three-hundred thirty-one nonurine isolates and 493 urine isolates were tested. For nonurinary isolates, there was 91.5% agreement between the two methods. For urinary isolates, there was 97.4% agreement between the two methods. Overall, there was 95% agreement between the two systems. The results suggest that the current version of the MicroScan WalkAway system with conventional panels is essentially comparable to the current Vitek system.

Evaluation of RapID onE system for identification of 379 strains in the family Enterobacteriaceae and oxidase-negative, gram-negative nonfermenters

The ability of the RapID onE system (Innovative Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Norcross, Ga.) to identify 364 strains in the family Enterobacteriaceae and 15 oxidase-negative, gram-negative, nonfermentative rods was evaluated. Kits were inoculated with no. 2 McFarland standard suspensions, and reactions were interpreted after 4 h of incubation at 35 degrees C. Overall, the method correctly identified (to the species level or to the genus level for salmonellas and non-Shigella sonnei Shigella species) 363 strains (95.8%) without additional tests. For four strains (1.0%), additional tests were required to delineate the correct identification from a range of two or more possibilities; these included one Serratia liquefaciens (Serratia marcescens or Serratia liquefaciens), one Serratia rubidaea (Serratia rubidaea or Serratia odorifera), one Salmonella typhi (Leminorella richardii or Salmonella sp.) and one Yersinia enterocolitica (Yersinia frederiksenii, Yersinia intermedia, or Yersinia enterocolitica). Twelve strains (3.2%) were misidentified or yielded codes with no identification; these comprised one Citrobacter amalonaticus (no identification), three Enterobacter hormaechei (not in the RapID onE database; two Enterobacter amnigenus, one Enterobacter sp.), one Serratia liquefaciens (Enterobacter cloacae), one Serratia rubidaea (no identification), four Serratia fonticola (not in RapID onE database; two Enterobacter aerogenes, one Serratia marcescens, one not identified), one Proteus mirabilis (Proteus penneri), and one Proteus vulgaris (Providencia rustigianii). If the seven strains not included in the database had been excluded, correct identification rates would have risen to 97.6% without additional tests and 98.7% with additional tests, with misidentification rates dropping to 1.3%. The RapID onE system is easy to set up and the results are easy to read, and the system provides an accurate, nonautomated commercially available method for the same-day identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and oxidase-negative, gram-negative nonfermenters.

Automated systems for identification of microorganisms

Automated instruments for the identification of microorganisms were introduced into clinical microbiology laboratories in the 1970s. During the past two decades, the capabilities and performance characteristics of automated identification systems have steadily progressed and improved. This article explores the development of the various automated identification systems available in the United States and reviews their performance for identification of microorganisms. Observations regarding deficiencies and suggested improvements for these systems are provided.

Comparison of the autoSCAN-W/A rapid bacterial identification system and the Vitek AutoMicrobic system for identification of gram-negative bacilli

The autoSCAN-W/A (W/A; Baxter MicroScan, West Sacramento, Calif.) with the new fluorometric Rapid Neg Combo 1 (RNC) panel is a fully automated fluorometric system for identification of both enteric and nonenteric gram-negative bacilli within 2 h. We compared the W/A with the Vitek AutoMicrobic System (Vitek AMS; Vitek Systems, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.) for identification of 383 clinical isolates of gram-negative bacilli. The API 20E (Analytab Products, Plainview, N.Y.) and conventional biochemical testing were used as the reference systems. The W/A correctly identified 336 isolates (87.7%) to the species level and classified an additional 29 isolates (7.6%) as correct with low probability (overall identification = 95.3%); the Vitek AMS correctly identified 355 isolates (92.7%) to the species level and classified an additional 8 isolates (2.1%) as correct with low probability (overall identification = 94.8%). A common set of 134 isolates of gram-negative bacilli was tested in both participating laboratories as a means of assessing interlaboratory agreement with both the W/A and the Vitek AMS. The overall agreements between the two laboratories were 86% with the W/A and 92% with the Vitek AMS. The W/A performed comparably to the Vitek AMS for identification of most gram-negative bacilli, actually exceeding the Vitek AMS for identification of nonenteric bacilli. Rapid time to identification and a high level of automation make the W/A an attractive system for clinical microbiology laboratories.

Evaluation of autoSCAN-W/A automated microbiology system for the identification of non-glucose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli

We evaluated the ability of the autoSCAN-W/A (MicroScan Division, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, West Sacramento, Calif.), in conjunction with the dried colorimetric Neg ID type 2 panel (DCP) and new rapid fluorometric Neg ID panel (RFP), to identify non-glucose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli by challenging the system with 310 previously identified reference strains. Of these 310 isolates, 286 organisms were in the DCP data base and 269 were in the RFP data base. Use of the DCP panels resulted in 118 (41.3%) correct and 64 (22.4%) incorrect first choice identifications at greater than or equal to 85% probability, 61 (21.3%) low-probability identifications, and 43 (15.0%) reports of unidentified organisms. The RFP system reported 135 (50.1%) correct and 25 (9.3%) incorrect identifications at greater than or equal to 85% probability and 109 (40.5%) low-probability identifications. Unidentified isolates (DCP system only) and isolates producing low-probability first choice identifications (both systems) required supplementary biochemical testing. Over half (37 of 64 [57.8%]) of the DCP misidentifications were due to four commonly isolated, saccharolytic organisms (Alcaligenes xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans, Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Xanthomonas maltophilia), while 7 of 25 (28%) of misidentifications in the RFP system were due to P. fluorescens. Of note, the RFP system identified non-glucose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli within 2 h of panel inoculation, allowing additional conventional biochemical tests to be set up the same day on low-probability isolates, whereas only 13.5% of the DCPs could be read at 18 h, with the remainder requiring 42 h of incubation before reading. When organism identifications were recalculated with the updated RFP data base and revised software, only 8.1% of all 310 isolates were misidentified at greater than or equal to 85% probability while 77.1% of the isolates were now correctly reported at this same high probability.

Evaluation of Spectrum-10 system for identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae

A total of 378 isolates of the family Enterobacteriaceae were tested with conventional biochemical tests and with the Spectrum-10 identification system. Of these, 97.4% were correctly identified to the species level by using the seven-digit profile of Spectrum-10. The preliminary four-digit profile provided the correct species for 61.1% and the correct genus for 79.4% of the strains. Most misidentifications were observed with aberrant biotypes of Citrobacter freundii.

Comparison of identification of Enterobacteriaceae by API 20E and Sensititre Autoidentification System

Of 251 isolates of the Enterobacteriaceae identified to species level by API 20E, 208 (83%) were similarily identified by the Sensititre Autoidentification System. Both systems shared a common problem in that discrimination between species of the genera Klebsiella, Enterobacter, and Serratia was poor. The eight digit biocode generated by the Sensititre system for individual isolates is not reproducible and therefore not of epidemiological value.