4.6 Article

Clinical Severity of Clostridium difficile PCR Ribotype 027: A Case-Case Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001812

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Clostridium difficile is a leading infectious cause of health care associated diarrhoea. Several industrialised countries have reported increased C. difficile infections and outbreaks, which have been attributed to the emergent PCR ribotype 027 strain. Methods and Findings: We conducted a case-case study to compare severity of C. difficile disease for patients with 027 versus non-027 ribotypes. We retrospectively collected clinical information about 123/136 patients with C. difficile infections admitted to hospitals in the East of England region in 2006 and from whom stool isolates were cultured and ribotyped as part of an earlier national survey. We defined severe C. difficile disease as having one or more of shock, paralytic ileus, pseudo membranous colitis or toxic megacolon. Patient median age was 83 years old (range 3 to 98, interquartile range 75 to 89), 86% were prescribed antibiotics in the eight weeks before illness onset, 41% had ribotype 027 and 30-day all cause mortality during hospital admission was 21%. Severe disease occurred in 24% (95% CI 13% to 37%) and 17% (95% CI 9% to 27%) of patients with PCR ribotype 027 and non-027 ribotypes respectively. In a multivariable model, ribotype 027 was not associated with severe disease after adjusting for sex, discharge from hospital prior to 60 days of current admission, gastroenteritis on admission, number of initiator antibiotics for C. difficile disease, and hospital where the patient was admitted. Conclusions: Our study found no evidence to support previous assertions that ribotype 027 is more virulent than other PCR ribotypes. This finding raises questions about the contribution of this strain to the recent increase in C. difficile disease throughout North America and Europe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据