Saffert, Ryan T.

ABSTRACTThe Bruker Biotyper and Vitek MS matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) instruments were evaluated for the identification of nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB) by a blinded comparison to conventional biochemical or molecular methods. Two hundred NFGNB that were recovered from cultures from cystic fibrosis patients in the University of Iowa Health Care (UIHC) Microbiology Laboratory between 1 January 2006 and 31 October 2010 were sent to Mayo Clinic for analysis with the Bruker Biotyper (software version 3.0) and to bioMérieux for testing with Vitek MS (SARAMIS database version 3.62). If two attempts at direct colony testing failed to provide an acceptable MALDI-TOF identification, an extraction procedure was performed. The MS identifications from both of these systems were provided to UIHC for comparison to the biochemical or molecular identification that had been reported in the patient record. Isolates with discordant results were analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing at UIHC. After discrepancy testing, the Bruker Biotyper result agreed with the biochemical or molecular method, with 72.5% of isolates to the species level, 5.5% to the complex level, and 19% to the genus level (3% not identified). The level of agreement for Vitek MS was 80% species, 3.5% complex, 6% genus, and 3.5% family (7% not identified). Both MS systems provided rapid (≤3 min per isolate) and reliable identifications. The agreement of combined species/complex/genus-level identification with the reference method was higher for the Bruker Biotyper (97% versus 89.5%,P= 0.004) but required an extraction step more often. Species-level agreement with the reference method was similar for both MS systems (72.5% and 80%,P= 0.099).

ABSTRACT We compared the BD Phoenix automated microbiology system to the Bruker Biotyper (version 2.0) matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) system for identification of Gram-negative bacilli, using biochemical testing and/or genetic sequencing to resolve discordant results. The BD Phoenix correctly identified 363 (83%) and 330 (75%) isolates to the genus and species level, respectively. The Bruker Biotyper correctly identified 408 (93%) and 360 (82%) isolates to the genus and species level, respectively. The 440 isolates were grouped into common (308) and infrequent (132) isolates in the clinical laboratory. For the 308 common isolates, the BD Phoenix and Bruker Biotyper correctly identified 294 (95%) and 296 (96%) of the isolates to the genus level, respectively. For species identification, the BD Phoenix and Bruker Biotyper correctly identified 93% of the common isolates (285 and 286, respectively). In contrast, for the 132 infrequent isolates, the Bruker Biotyper correctly identified 112 (85%) and 74 (56%) isolates to the genus and species level, respectively, compared to the BD Phoenix, which identified only 69 (52%) and 45 (34%) isolates to the genus and species level, respectively. Statistically, the Bruker Biotyper overall outperformed the BD Phoenix for identification of Gram-negative bacilli to the genus ( P < 0.0001) and species ( P = 0.0005) level in this sample set. When isolates were categorized as common or infrequent isolates, there was statistically no difference between the instruments for identification of common Gram-negative bacilli ( P > 0.05). However, the Bruker Biotyper outperformed the BD Phoenix for identification of infrequently isolated Gram-negative bacilli ( P < 0.0001).