BACKGROUND Vitros ECiQ and Architect i2000 SR are two automated instruments used to detect serology biomarkers of hepatitis A, B and C viruses, and HIV infections. We compared performance of the Architect to the Vitro EciQ after implementation at our institution. METHODS A retrospective review was performed to compare patient samples tested on the Vitros ECiQ or Architect for hepatitis and HIV serological assays. The positivity rate, frequency of equivocal results, turnaround times (TAT), and hands-on time (HOT) were analyzed. RESULTS There was no statistical difference in the positivity rate between the two instruments, with the exception of two assays. An increase in equivocal results was observed for the Architect (0.2% vs 0.5%). Notably, the TAT for the Architect i2000 was shorter for all except one assay (31.6 vs 33.7 hours) and demonstrated improved workflow. CONCLUSIONS Overall, both instruments performed comparably. Architect had shorter TAT over Vitros.

中文翻译：

---

与 Vitros ECiQ 相比，Architect i2000 SR 缩短了传染病血清学检测的周转时间。

背景 Vitros ECiQ 和 Architect i2000 SR 是两种自动化仪器，用于检测甲型、乙型和丙型肝炎病毒以及 HIV 感染的血清学生物标志物。我们将 Architect 的性能与在我们机构实施后的 Vitro EciQ 进行了比较。方法 进行回顾性审查以比较在 Vitros ECiQ 或 Architect 上测试的患者样本进行肝炎和 HIV 血清学检测。分析了阳性率、模棱两可结果的频率、周转时间 (TAT) 和实际操作时间 (HOT)。结果 两种仪器之间的阳性率没有统计学差异，但两种检测除外。观察到建筑师的模棱两可结果有所增加（0.2% 对 0.5%）。值得注意的是，除了一项检测外，Architect i2000 的 TAT 都较短（31.6 vs 33. 7 小时）并展示了改进的工作流程。结论 总体而言，两种工具的表现相当。Architect 的 TAT 比 Vitros 短。