Antimicrobial proficiency testing of National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System hospital laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: The National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System personnel report trends in antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. To validate select antimicrobial susceptibility testing results and to identify test methods that tend to produce errors, we conducted proficiency testing among NNIS System hospital laboratories. SETTING: NNIS System hospital laboratories in the United States. METHODS: Each laboratory received five organisms (ie, an imipenem-resistant Serratia marcescens, an oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis, a vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus epidermidis, and an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESbetaL)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae). Testing results were compared with reference testing results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: Of 138 laboratories testing imipenem against the Serratia marcescens strain, 110 (80%) correctly reported minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) or zone sizes in the resistant range. All 193 participating laboratories correctly reported the Staphylococcus aureus strain as oxacillin resistant Of the 193 laboratories, 169 (88%) reported correct MICs or zone sizes for the vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. One hundred sixty-two (84%) of 193 laboratories demonstrated the ability to detect a vancomycin-intermediate strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis, however, disk diffusion performed poorly when testing both staphylococci and enterococci with vancomycin. Although laboratory personnel correctly reported nonsusceptible extended-spectrum cephalosporins and aztreonam results for K. pneumoniae, only 98 (51%) of 193 correctly reported this organism as an ESbetaL producer. CONCLUSION: Overall, NNIS System hospital laboratory personnel detected most emerging resistance patterns. Disk diffusion continues to be unreliable for vancomycin testing of staphylococci and must be used cautiously for enterococci. Further education on the processing of ESbetaL-producing organisms is warranted.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of carbapenems: multicenter validity testing and accuracy levels of five antimicrobial test methods for detecting resistance in Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates.

From January 1996 to May 1999, Project ICARE (Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology) received 448 nonduplicate clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa that were reported to be imipenem intermediate or resistant. However, broth microdilution (BMD) confirmatory testing at the Project ICARE central laboratory confirmed this result in only 11 of 123 (8.9%) Enterobacteriaceae isolates and 241 of 325 (74.2%) P. aeruginosa isolates. To investigate this overdetection of imipenem resistance, we tested 204 selected isolates from the Project ICARE collection plus five imipenem-resistant challenge strains at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention against imipenem and meropenem by agar dilution, disk diffusion, Etest (AB BIODISK North America, Inc., Piscataway, N.J.), two MicroScan WalkAway conventional panels (Neg MIC Plus 3 and Neg Urine Combo 3) (Dade MicroScan, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif.), and two Vitek cards (GNS-116 containing meropenem and GNS-F7 containing imipenem) (bioMérieux Vitek, Inc., Durham, N.C.). The results of each test method were compared to the results of BMD testing using in-house-prepared panels. Seven imipenem-resistant and five meropenem-resistant isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and 43 imipenem-resistant and 21 meropenem-resistant isolates of P. aeruginosa were identified by BMD. For Enterobacteriaceae, the imipenem and meropenem test methods produced low numbers of very major and major errors. All test systems in the study produced low numbers of very major and major errors when P. aeruginosa was tested against imipenem and meropenem, except for Vitek testing (major error rate for imipenem, 20%). Further testing conducted in 11 of the participating ICARE hospital laboratories failed to pinpoint the factors responsible for the initial overdetection of imipenem resistance. However, this study demonstrated that carbapenem testing difficulties do exist and that laboratories should consider using a second, independent antimicrobial susceptibility testing method to validate carbapenem-intermediate and -resistant results.