The objective of our study is to assess the impact of different methods of
duplicate isolate removal on cumulative susceptibility reports.
Over a 1-year period, we studied the effect of 3 methods of duplicate isola
te removal on the cumulative percentage susceptibility of 9 Gram-negative b
acilli to 15 antimicrobials. Raw data from which no duplicate isolates were
removed (NR) were generated by the Sensititre (R) breakpoint susceptibilit
y testing system. D3 and D7 were methods of duplicate isolate removal defin
ed as follows: same patient, bacterial species, irrespective of susceptibil
ity within either three (D3) ol seven (D7) calendar days of the date of the
: previous culture. The third method evaluated was an algorithm utilized by
Cerner (R), a laboratory management program that defines: duplicate isolat
es as follows: same patient, bacterial species, and NCCLS susceptibility ca
tegory to an individual antimicrobial. Differences in percentage susceptibi
lity between the three methods of duplicate isolate removal and NR were ass
essed.
The number of isolates studied ranged from 80 (E. aerogenes) to 681 (P. aer
uginosa). Of the methods of duplicate isolate removal, the highest percenta
ge susceptibility occurred most frequently with Cerner (R) followed by D7 a
nd D3. Differences in percentage susceptibility between methods of removal
and NR ranged from -11 to 25%, -5 to 8%, and -3 to 10%, with Cerner (R), D3
, and D7, respectively. The percentage susceptibility was at least 5% highe
r than NR with a method of removal for 15 individual organism/antimicrobial
combinations in which susceptibility was greater than or equal to 70% by a
t least one of the methods. These occurred most frequently with Enterobacte
r species and Cerner (R).
Although there is no consensus on the ideal method of duplicate isolate rem
oval, one should be cognizant that these manipulations may produce differen
t cumulative susceptibility reports. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rig
hts reserved.