Comparison of the ASTA MicroIDSys and VITEK MS matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry systems for identification of clinical bacteria and yeasts.

The ASTA MicroIDSys system (ASTA, Suwon, Korea) is a newly developed Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) system for identification of microorganisms. We compared the performance of the ASTA MicroIDSys system with that of the VITEK MS system (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) for identifying clinical microorganisms. A total 2055 isolates including 1910 bacteria and 145 yeasts were tested. Among them, the VITEK MS correctly identified 1999 (97.3%) isolates to species level and 26 (1.3%) to the genus level. The ASTA MicroIDSys correctly identified 1988 (96.7%) isolates to species level and 28 (1.4%) to the genus level. The VITEK MS and ASTA MicroIDSys misidentified one isolate and four (0.2%) isolates, respectively, and provided no identification for 29 (1.4%) and 35 (1.7%) isolates, respectively. The performance of the ASTA MicroIDSys was comparable to that of the VITEK MS for identification of clinically relevant bacterial and yeast isolates.

Evaluation of modified saponin preparation method for the direct identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing from positive blood culture.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the two in-house sample preparation methods (saponin method (SAP) and [saponin + Sputazyme] method (SSPZ)) for direct identification of microorganisms using MALDI-TOF MS from positive blood culture bottles. Also, we evaluated the [saponin + Sputazyme] method for direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) using Vitek 2 system. METHODS: For direct identification, 163 prospective, monomicrobial positive blood culture bottles and 25 contrived blood culture bottles spiked with 25 infrequently isolated bacterial strains were included. For direct AST, pellets obtained by SSPZ method from 102 prospective blood culture bottles were tested. The results from the direct identification and AST were compared with those from the routine diagnostic method performed with colonies sub cultured on solid media. RESULTS: In 163 prospective specimens, SAP method correctly identified 132/163 (81.0%) isolates and SSPZ method correctly identified 148/163 (90.8%) isolates (P = .018). Among the 92 Gram-positive isolates, the correct identification rate was significantly higher with the SSPZ method than the SAP method (92.4% vs. 81.5%), respectively (P = .041). However, the SSPZ method failed to identify Streptococcus pneumoniae. Among the 64 Gram-negative isolates, the correct identification rate was 82.8% (53/64) and 87.5% (56/64) for the former and the latter method, respectively (P = .491). Compared with standard methods direct AST showed 98.5% (1523/1547) agreement. CONCLUSION: The addition of Sputazyme improved the identification of commonly isolated bacteria, especially for Gram-positive isolates and yeasts and can be applied for direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. Although SAP method showed better results for Campylobacter spp. and anaerobic bacteria, considering their very low incidence, routine use of SSPZ will be more practical.