难辨梭菌鉴定培养基临床应用评估

被引：1

作者：

程敬伟 ^{[1
,2
]}

徐志鹏 ^{[2
]}

孙林英 ^{[3
]}

侯欣 ^{[1
,2
]}

徐英春 ^{[1
,2
]}

赵玉沛 ^{[1
,4
]}

机构：

[1] 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院研究生院

[2] 中国医学科学院北京协和医院检验科

[3] 泰山医学院公共卫生学院临检教研室

[4] 中国医学科学院北京协和医院基本外科

来源：

临床检验杂志 | 2015年 / 33卷 / 07期

关键词：

难辨梭菌; CDIF培养基; CCFA培养基; 质谱技术;

D O I：

10.13602/j.cnki.jcls.2015.07.18

中图分类号：

R446.5 [微生物学检验];

学科分类号：

100208 ;

摘要：

目的评估难辨梭菌鉴定培养基(CDIF)的应用价值。方法用方法学评估研究。对临床收集的255份粪便标本同步进行CDIF培养基和环丝氨酸-头孢西丁-果糖琼脂培养基(CCFA)培养,并对CDIF培养基上的所有菌株及CCFA培养基上的典型菌株进行基质辅助激光解吸/电离飞行时间质谱鉴定。结果 255份粪便标本中,经CDIF培养24 h后出现典型菌株64株,经质谱鉴定为难辨梭菌58株;另有3株无色透明菌落的菌株被质谱鉴定为难辨梭菌。以质谱鉴定结果为参考,CDIF培养基对难辨梭菌鉴定的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为95.1%(58/61)、96.9%(188/194)、90.6%(58/64)和98.4%(188/191)。CCFA培养48 h后生长的典型菌株经质谱鉴定为难辨梭菌61株。CDIF培养基和CCFA培养基上经质谱鉴定为难辨梭菌的菌落中,分离单一菌种比例分别为80.3%(49/61)和77.0%(47/61);CDIF培养基上菌落生长密度高于CCFA培养基。结论 CDIF培养基具有快速准确、操作简便、成本较低的特点,为难辨梭菌感染的实验室诊断提供了新的选择。

引用

页码：554 / 556

页数：3

共 11 条

[1]

Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Cheng Allen C,Ferguson John K,Richards Michael J,Robson Jennifer M,Gilbert Gwendolyn L,McGregor Alistair,Roberts Sally,Korman Tony M,Riley Thomas V. The Medical journal of Australia . 2011

[2]

Comparison of a Commercial Real-Time PCR Assay for tcdB Detection to a Cell Culture Cytotoxicity Assay and Toxigenic Culture for Direct Detection of Toxin-Producing Clostridium difficile in Clinical Samples. Paul D. Stamper,Romina Alcabasa,Deborah Aird,Wisal Babiker,Jennifer Wehrlin,Ijeoma Ikpeama,Karen C. Carroll. Journal of Clinical Microbiology . 2009

[3]

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Clostridium difficile Epi Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection and Typing of the NAP1 Strain at a Cancer Hospital. N. Esther Babady,Jeffrey Stiles,Phyllis Ruggiero. Journal of Clinical Microbiology . 2010

[4]

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): Data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI). M. J. T. Crobach,O. M. Dekkers,M. H. Wilcox,E. J. Kuijper. Clinical Microbiology & Infection . 2009

[5]

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review. Planche Tim,Aghaizu Adamma,Holliman Richard,Riley Peter,Poloniecki Jan,Breathnach Aodhán,Krishna Sanjeev. The Lancet Infectious Diseases . 2008

[6]

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Stuart H. Cohen,Dale N. Gerding,Stuart Johnson. INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY . 2010

[7]

Clostridium difficile--more difficult than ever. Kelly Ciarán P,LaMont J Thomas. The New England Quarterly . 2008

[8]

Clostridium difficile infection in patients discharged from US short-stay hospitals, 1996-2003. McDonald L Clifford,Owings Maria,Jernigan Daniel B. Emerging Infections . 2006

[9]

A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. Loo Vivian G,Poirier Louise,Miller Mark A,Oughton Matthew,Libman Michael D,Michaud Sophie,Bourgault Anne-Marie,Nguyen Tuyen,Frenette Charles,Kelly Mirabelle,Vibien Anne,Brassard Paul,Fenn Susan,Dewar Ken,Hudson Thomas J,Horn Ruth,René Pie. The New England Quarterly . 2005

[10]

Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Bassetti Matteo,Villa Giovanni,Pecori Davide,Arzese Alessandra,Wilcox Mark. Expert review of anti-infective therapy . 2012

← 1 2 →