comparison of two commercial pcr methods for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (mrsa) screening in a tertiary care hospital比较两个商业pcr方法对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(mrsa)在三级保健医院筛查.pdf

Comparison of Two Commercial PCR Methods for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital 1. ¨ 1. 1 2 ¨ 1 Aylin Aydiner , Jessica Lusebrink , Verena Schildgen , Ingo Winterfeld , Oliver Knuver , 2 2 1 2 Katja Schwarz , Sabine Messler , Oliver Schildgen *, Frauke Mattner * ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 1 Institut fur Pathologie, Kliniken der Stadt Koln gGmbH, Koln, Germany, 2 Institut fur Hygiene, Kliniken der Stadt Koln gGmbH, Koln, Germany Abstract Nose/throat-swabs from 1049 patients were screened for MRSA using CHROMagar MRSA, LightCycler Advanced MRSA, and Detect-Ready MRSA. Results were compared to the CHROMagar MRSA results, which was set as reference system. MRSA was detected in 3.05% of the patients with CHROMagar MRSA. LightCycler MRSA Advanced showed a higher clinical sensitivity (84.38%) than Detect-Ready MRSA (57.69%).The negative predictive values were high for both tests (.98%). The specificity and the positive predictive value were higher for the Detect-Ready MRSA test than for the LightCycler MRSA test (99.59% and 78.95% versus 98.52% and 64.29%). For routine screening LightCycler MRSA Advanced proved to be more efficient in our clinical setting as the clinical sensitivity was much higher than the sensitivity of Detect-Ready MRSA. CHROMagar MRSA detected more MRSA positive samples than both PCR methods, leading to the conclusion that the combination of PCR with cultural screening is still the most reliable way for the detection of MRSA. LightCycler MRSA Ad