[Comparison of Phoenix Automated System, API ID 32 Strep System and LightCycler Enterococcus MGRADE System in the...

Enterococci which are part of the commensal flora of the human gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts, are increasing in importance as the cause of hospital-acquired infections. Identification of Enterococcus spp. at the species level is of great importance, for appropriate treatment of patients, infection control and to supply epidemiological data. Conventional methods for the identification of enterococcus isolates at species level is difficult and time consuming. Correct identification of enterococcus isolates in clinical microbiology laboratory by conventional methods is replaced by semi-automated or automated identification and molecular methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Phoenix automated system (BD Diagnostic Systems, USA), API Rapid ID 32 Strep System (bioMerieux, France) and Enterococcus MGRADE LightCycler kit (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Germany) used in real-time polymerase chain reaction (Rt-PCR), for the species level identification of enterococcus strains isolated from clinical specimens. A total of 90 vancomycin susceptible enterococci isolated from different patients were identified by all of the three commercial systems, together with conventional methods. Of the strains, 59 were identified as E.faecalis, 28 were E.faecium, and one of each as E.raffinosus, E.hirae and E.casseliflavus with conventional methods. One E.faecalis strain identified by the conventional system was identified as E.faecium by Phoenix system and one E.faecium strain as E.durans. One E.raffinosus strain identifed by the conventional method was identified as E.avium by API. Conventionally identified four E.faecalis strains were determined to be E.faecium by Rt-PCR and one E.faecium, one E.raffinosus and one E.casseliflavus as E.faecalis. Accordingly, the consistency of Phoenix, API Rapid ID 32 Strep and LightCycler Enterococcus MGRADE systems with the conventional methods were detected as 97.8% (88/90), 98.9% (89/90), and 92.2% (83/90), respectively. In conclusion, all of those three commercial assays are appropriate methods to be used for the identification of enterococci at the species level in the routine clinical microbiology laboratories, due to their high compliance with the conventional method, and their ability to yield the results at the same day.