2008
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.02250-07
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy and Potential Usefulness of Triplex Real-Time PCR for Improving Antibiotic Treatment of Patients with Blood Cultures Showing Clustered Gram-Positive Cocci on Direct Smears

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

3
39
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(54 reference statements)
3
39
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…E. coli isolates were tested for susceptibility to amoxicillin, tircacillin, amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, ceftazidime, cefepime, ertapenem, nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, amikacin, fosfomycin and co-trimoxazole (Bio-Rad, Marne-la-Coquette, France) using the disc diffusion method and presence of ESBL was determined using the double disc-diffusion phenotypic method, as recommended by the Antibiogram Committee of the French Society for Microbiology [4]. To confirm the ESBL identification with molecular methods, total DNA was extracted from E. coli strains, as described [5] and blaCTX-M (group 1), blaTEM and blaSHV genes were amplified by PCR using specific primers, as described [6].…”
Section: Microbiological Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…E. coli isolates were tested for susceptibility to amoxicillin, tircacillin, amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, ceftazidime, cefepime, ertapenem, nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, amikacin, fosfomycin and co-trimoxazole (Bio-Rad, Marne-la-Coquette, France) using the disc diffusion method and presence of ESBL was determined using the double disc-diffusion phenotypic method, as recommended by the Antibiogram Committee of the French Society for Microbiology [4]. To confirm the ESBL identification with molecular methods, total DNA was extracted from E. coli strains, as described [5] and blaCTX-M (group 1), blaTEM and blaSHV genes were amplified by PCR using specific primers, as described [6].…”
Section: Microbiological Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Automated blood culture systems take approximately 1 to 2 days, on average, to signal a positive blood culture and another 1 to 2 days to finalize bacterial identification and antimicrobial testing. With the advent of qPCR, the time to bacterial identification and detection of drug resistance has been reduced to 4 to 6 h after a positive blood culture has turned positive (22,24,26,28). However, the presence of PCR inhibitors in the blood culture bottles has thus far reduced the sensitivity of PCR assays (10).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three MSSA strains (13,30, and 114) were misidentified as MRSA by the BD GeneOhm StaphSR assay. None of these strains harbored a functional mecA gene as analyzed by PCR techniques, and no SCCmec type could be determined.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, bacterial identification and preliminary antibiotic susceptibility testing by standard microbiological procedures still requires 24 to 48 h after growth detection by automated incubation systems. In contrast, new real-time PCR-based methods that use samples directly from positive blood culture bottles allows differentiation of MSSA, MRSA, and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) within 1.5 to 3 h (7,12,13,16). Such tests promote an early appropriate antibiotic selection, thus avoiding the unnecessary use of vancomycin, and they reduce mortality, the length of hospitalization, and costs associated with bloodstream infections caused by these bacteria (3).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%