4.5 Article

Clostridioides difficile infection in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: A nested cohort study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154254

关键词

Clostridioides difficile infection; Critical illness; Epidemiology; Probiotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This nested cohort study examined the incidence, prevalence, timing, severity, predictors, and outcomes of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) among critical illness patients. The results showed a low incidence and prevalence of CDI, with mild to moderate severity. CDI was not associated with hospital mortality but was associated with a longer hospital stay.
Introduction: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a serious complication of critical illness. The objective of the study was to determine its incidence, prevalence, timing, severity, predictors, and outcomes.Methods: We performed a prospective nested cohort study of CDI within a randomized trial comparing Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG to placebo. We adjudicated cases of CDI using standardized definitions, assessed timing (pre-ICU, in ICU, post-ICU) and severity. We analyzed risk factors and outcomes.Results: Of 2650 patients, 86 were diagnosed with CDI during 90,833 hospital-days (0.95/1000 hospital-days); CDI prevalence was 3.2%. CDI incidence varied in timing; 0.3% patients had CDI pre-ICU, 2.2% in the ICU; an 0.8% developed CDI post-ICU. Relapse or recurrence of CDI was documented in 9.3% patients. Infections were mild/moderate in severity. Complications included septic shock (26.7%), organ failure (16.3%), and toxic megacolon requiring colectomy (1.2%). No risk factors for CDI were identified. CDI was not associated with hospital mortality. The duration of hospital stay was longer for those who had CDI compared those who did not, Conclusion: CDI was uncommon, severity was mild to moderate and not associated with mortality however CDI was associated with a longer hospital stay.

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

4.5
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