分析两种细菌鉴定法在临床血液检验中的应用

Analysis of the Application of Two Bacterial Identification Methods in Clinical Blood Test

目的分析两种细菌鉴定法在临床血液检验工作当中的价值。方法针对2018年3月至2019年3月入院的100例高热,同时存在全身感染患者的血液进行两种细菌鉴定法。即对患者实施采血后对血样进行检验;对患者分别实施常规药敏试验以及直接药敏试验。对比两组患者细菌鉴定结果符合率,同时对比两种检验方式所用时间。结果经过鉴定后发现,在对革兰阳性菌符合率、革兰阴性菌符合率、耐药符合率进行鉴定之后发现,两种鉴定方式无统计学意义(P>0.05),对患者实施常规药敏试验和直接药敏试验后,其平均操作时间分别为(33.5±3.4)h和(26.5±2.4)h,由此可见直接药敏试验方式所用时间明显比常规药敏试验所用时间短(t=6.254,P<0.05),两组差异显著。鉴定后,直接药敏试验的准确率与检出率分别是92.00%、94.00%,而常规药敏试验准确率与检出率分别是76.00%、80.00%,前者高出后者很多,二者数据对比差异显著,可以进行统计学分析(P<0.05)。结论对患者实施常规药敏试验和直接药敏试验,准确率相似,但是采用直接药敏试验,操作比较简单,所用时间比较短,因此值得在临床上广泛应用。

Objective To analyze the value of two bacterial identification methods in clinical blood tests.Methods Two kinds of bacterial identification methods were performed for 100 cases of hyperthermia admitted to hospital from March 20 to March 2019,and blood of patients with systemic infection.That is,the blood sample is tested after the blood is collected from the patient;the conventional drug sensitivity test and the direct drug sensitivity test are performed on the patient.The coincidence rate of bacterial identification results between the two groups was compared,and the time used for the two test methods was compared.Results After identification,it was found that after the coincidence rate of Gram-positive bacteria,the coincidence rate of Gram-negative bacteria,and the coincidence rate of drug resistance,it was found that the two methods were not statistically significant(P>0.05).After performing routine susceptibility test and direct susceptibility test,the average operation time was(33.5±3.4)h and(26.5±2.4)h,respectively.It can be seen that the time of direct susceptibility test is significantly longer than that of conventional susceptibility test.Short(t=6.254,P<0.05),the difference between the two groups was significant.After the identification,the accuracy and detection rate of the direct drug susceptibility test were 92.00%and 94.00%,respectively,while the accuracy and detection rate of the conventional drug susceptibility test were 76.00%and 80.00%,respectively.The former is much higher than the latter,both Data contrast was significant and statistical analysis was possible(P<0.05).Conclusion The routine susceptibility test and direct susceptibility test are performed on patients with similar accuracy.However,the direct susceptibility test is simple and the operation time is short,so it is worthy of being widely used in clinical practice.