液体MGIT培养法在结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用评估

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8640.2013.03.011

检验医学 ›› 2013, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (3): 211-214.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8640.2013.03.011

• 技术研究与评价.论著 • 上一篇下一篇

液体MGIT培养法在结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用评估

吴学兵¹,陆彬²,桂晓虹³,江渊³,张国英⁴,王宏⁵

1. 上海市第七人民医院检验科，上海 200137；2.上海市松江区中心医院检验科，上海201600；3.上海市疾病预防控制中心结核病防治科，上海 200336

收稿日期:2013-01-07 修回日期:2012-05-07 出版日期:2013-03-30 发布日期:2013-03-14
作者简介:吴学兵，男，1964年生，学士，主任技师，主要从事临床检验和质量管理工作。

Application evaluation of liquid MGIT culture method in detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis

1.Department of Clinical Laboratory，Shanghai Seventh People′s Hospital，Shanghai 200137，China; 2.Department of Clinical Laboratory，Shanghai Songjiang District Central Hospital，Shanghai 201600，China; 3.Tuberculosis Prevention Branch，Shanghai Center for Disease Control and Prevention，Shanghai 200336，China

Received:2013-01-07 Revised:2012-05-07 Online:2013-03-30 Published:2013-03-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的　分别用液体分枝杆菌培养管（MGIT）培养法与固体罗氏(L-J)培养法及痰直接涂片抗酸染色检测结核分枝杆菌，评估液体MGIT培养法在结核病诊断中的应用。方法　收集上海市松江区中心医院2010年11月至2011年8月肺结核门诊及住院的疑似和确诊后治疗复诊的患者痰标本共1 598例，其中828例为疑似新发患者、770例为已确诊治疗后复诊患者痰标本，所有标本均分别用液体MGIT培养法、固体L-J培养法及痰涂片抗酸染色进行检测。结果　疑似新发患者痰液体MGIT培养法报阳时间[（13.63±7.14）d]与固体L-J培养法报阳时间[（28.67±10.04）d]间，复诊患者痰液体MGIT培养法报阳时间[（22.94±9.55）d]与固体L-J培养法报阳时间[（28.53±10.40）d]间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；疑似新发患者痰液体MGIT培养法培养阳性率[32.00%(265/828)]比痰涂片抗酸染色法[14.80%(123/828)]和固体L-J培养法[17.90%(148/828)]高（P＜0.05），复诊患者痰液体MGIT培养法培养阳性率为9.30%(72/770)，痰涂片抗酸染色法为6.10%(47/770)，二者差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），但比固体 L-J培养法[2.60%(20/770)]高（P＜0.05）; 液体MGIT培养法污染率为[6.57%(105/1 598)]，比固体L-J培养法[4.00%(64/1 598)]高（P＜0.05)。结论　液体MGIT培养法在提高阳性率、缩短报阳时间上均优于传统的检测方法，而且操作简便，不需要昂贵设备，在基层医院易于操作和推广。

关键词: 液体分枝杆菌培养管培养法, 固体罗氏培养法, 阳性率, 报阳时间, 结核分枝杆菌

Abstract: Objective　To use liquid Mycobacterium growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture method，solid Roche(L-J) culture method and sputum direct smear acid-fast staining test for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis，and to evaluate the application of liquid MGIT culture method in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Methods　From November 2010 to August 2011 in Shanghai Songjiang District Central Hospital，1 598 sputum samples were collected from the suspected and confirmed tuberculosis inpatients and outpatients，who were diagnosed again after treatment (828 suspected newly cases and 770 cases from the follow-up patients being diagnosed again)，and all cases were detected by liquid MGIT culture method，solid L-J culture method and sputum direct smear acid-fast staining test. Results　By liquid MGIT culture method，the reporting positive time of suspected newly cases was (13.63±7.14) d，and the reporting positive time by solid L-J culture method was (28.67±10.04) d，with statistical significance (P＜0.05) . The reporting positive time of the being diagnosed again cases by liquid MGIT culture method was (22.94±9.55) d，and was (28.53±10.40) d by solid L-J culture method with statistical significance (P＜0.05 ). The positive rate of suspected newly patients by liquid MGIT culture method was 32.00% (265/828)，which was higher than those by sputum direct smear acid-fast staining test [14.80% (123/828)] and solid L-J culture method [17.90% (148/828)] with statistical significance (P＜0.05). The positive rate of being diagnosed again cases by liquid MGIT culture method was 9.30% (72/770) ，and was 6.10% (47/770) by sputum direct smear acid-fast staining test without statistical significance (P＞0.05 )，but that by liquid MGIT culture method was higher than that by solid L-J culture method [2.60% (20/770)] (P＜ 0.05). The contamination rate of liquid MGIT culture method [6.57% (105/1 598)] was higher than that by solid L-J method [4.00% (64/1 598)] (P＜ 0.05). Conclusions　The liquid MGIT culture method in terms of increasing the positive rate and shortening the reporting positive time is better than traditional detection methods，and it is easy to operate without using expensive equipment and suitable to use in the primary hospital.

Key words: Liquid Mycobacterium growth indicator tube culture method, Solid Roche culture method, Positive rate, Reporting positive time, Mycobacterium tuberculosis

吴学兵1，陆彬2，桂晓虹3，江渊3，张国英2，王宏2. 液体MGIT培养法在结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用评估[J]. 检验医学, 2013, 28(3): 211-214.

WU Xuebing 1，LU Bin 2，GUI Xiaohong 3，JIANG Yuan 3，ZHANG Guoying 2，WANG Hong 2. Application evaluation of liquid MGIT culture method in detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis[J]. , 2013, 28(3): 211-214.

[1]	孙信林, 叶星明, 李倩, 赵丽君. 支气管镜检查联合痰TB-RNA、血清TB-SA检测诊断菌阴肺结核[J]. 检验医学, 2023, 38(9): 870-873.
[2]	缪星国, 叶慧, 苏菲菲. GeneXpert MTB/RIF检出量与结核分枝杆菌培养和利福平表型耐药的关系[J]. 检验医学, 2023, 38(9): 874-877.
[3]	茹浩浩, 陈连勇, 杨星, 陈涛, 闫双群, 许琳. Xpert MTB/RIF与结核分枝杆菌利福平耐药表型检测一致性分析[J]. 检验医学, 2023, 38(11): 1032-1035.
[4]	郭明日, 李玉明, 李妍, 孙海柏. 微阵列芯片法和多同源基因序列测序在非结核分枝杆菌菌种鉴定中的差异[J]. 检验医学, 2023, 38(10): 909-914.
[5]	徐镠粤, 廖庆华, 彭柯皓, 余美玲, 陈燕梅, 卓文基, 赖晓宇. 核酸适配体荧光探针法和液基夹层杯法检测结核分枝杆菌临床应用价值比较[J]. 检验医学, 2023, 38(10): 915-918.
[6]	杜晶辉, 黄自坤, 刘旻, 龚菁菁, 王丹, 刘基波, 刘旭. 液体培养基硝酸还原酶试验快速检测临床常用抗结核药物最小抑菌浓度和临界浓度效果评价[J]. 检验医学, 2022, 37(6): 568-576.
[7]	李华, 王伟亮, 谢贝, 杨瑜, 孟繁荣, 王楠, 刘志辉, 张言斌. 流式细胞术鉴定结核分枝杆菌利福平异质性耐药可行性分析[J]. 检验医学, 2022, 37(6): 577-582.
[8]	王晶晶, 蒋晓飞, 马逸珉, 王蓓. 眼部感染休斯顿分枝杆菌1例报道[J]. 检验医学, 2021, 36(9): 988-990.
[9]	郁晨蕾, 江渊, 李静, 王莉莉, 陈炜, 沈旭晖, 张阳奕. 细菌超声分散计数仪在结核分枝杆菌最小抑菌浓度检测中的应用[J]. 检验医学, 2021, 36(6): 650-655.
[10]	林小玲, 梁立锋, 吴影桃, 赵杰明, 蔡秋月. 云浮地区肺结核病患者结核分枝杆菌复合群耐药性分析[J]. 检验医学, 2021, 36(2): 194-197.
[11]	郑炘, 黄绮, 邢珊, 谭肖鹂, 戴淑琴, 刘万里, 刘晓敏. 2种抗菌药物吸附材料血培养瓶BacT/ALERT检测平台病原体检出能力比较[J]. 检验医学, 2021, 36(12): 1258-1263.
[12]	沈晓华, 朱李杰. 呼吸道感染患者8种病原体IgM抗体检测的临床意义[J]. 检验医学, 2020, 35(9): 900-902.
[13]	刘军, 刘涛, 戴碗琴, 王艺翔, 侯彦强. Xpert MTB/RIF技术在结核分枝杆菌利福平耐药性快速检测中的价值[J]. 检验医学, 2020, 35(9): 920-923.
[14]	王启源, 姬文兰, 虞秀锋. 嗅素蛋白4对卡介苗诱导巨噬细胞凋亡和细菌胞内生存率的影响[J]. 检验医学, 2020, 35(8): 818-822.
[15]	张君丽, 林晨, 王玉臣, 刘军, 袁俐, 潘稚芬, 张鹭. FadD9重组蛋白在活动性肺结核诊断中的价值[J]. 检验医学, 2020, 35(6): 614-619.

液体MGIT培养法在结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用评估

Application evaluation of liquid MGIT culture method in detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics