4.8 Article

Fecal Transplantation, Through Colonoscopy, Is Effective Therapy for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 142, Issue 3, Pages 490-496

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.11.037

Keywords

Bacteriotherapy; Gut Microbiota; Refractory C difficile

Funding

  1. Finnish Foundation for Gastroenterological Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) with antibiotics leads to recurrences in up to 50% of patients. We investigated the efficacy of fecal transplantation in treatment of recurrent CDI. METHODS: We reviewed records from 70 patients with recurrent CDI who had undergone fecal transplantation. Fecal transplantation was performed at colonoscopy by infusing fresh donor feces into cecum. Before transplantation, the patients had whole-bowel lavage with polyethylene glycol solution. Clinical failure was defined as persistent or recurrent symptoms and signs, and a need for new therapy. RESULTS: During the first 12 weeks after fecal transplantation, symptoms resolved in all patients who did not have strain 027 C difficile infections. Of 36 patients with 027 C difficile infection, 32 (89%) had a favorable response; all 4 nonresponders had a pre-existing serious condition, caused by a long-lasting diarrheal disease or comorbidity and subsequently died of colitis. During the first year after transplantation, 4 patients with an initial favorable response had a relapse after receiving antibiotics for unrelated causes; 2 were treated successfully with another fecal transplantation and 2 with antibiotics for CDI. Ten patients died of unrelated illnesses within 1 year after transplantation. No immediate complications of fecal transplantation were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal transplantation through colonoscopy seems to be an effective treatment for recurrent CDI and also for recurrent CDI caused by the virulent C difficile 027 strain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available