3.8 Article

Clostridium difficile as a cause of acute diarrhea: a prospective study in a tertiary care center

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 179-183

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12664-013-0303-8

关键词

Antibiotic-associated diarrhea; Nosocomial infection; Risk factors

资金

  1. The Research Department of P D Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is an increasing problem. Recent reports suggest presence of community acquired CDAD (CA CDAD). Studies in India have shown varied results. Aims The following are the aims of this study: (a) the prevalence of CDAD and CA CDAD in patients with acute diarrhea; (b) the incremental yield of second stool sample for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI); and (c) the risk factors for CDI. Patients and Methods Patients with acute diarrhea (<4 weeks) between April 2009 and December 2010 had two stool sample tested for C. difficile toxin (CDT) by enzyme-linked immunofluorescent assay. Demographic, clinical data, risk factors, clinical course, complications, treatment, and response were noted. Results Of 150 patients (mean age, 47.3 years; 76 males), 12 (8 %) had their first stool sample positive for CDT. Two patients (1.3 %) had community acquired CDI. The study group was compared with 138 patients (control group, stool samples negative for CDT). Compared to the controls, the study group were more likely to have had intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p=0.018) and tube feeding (p=0.035). Eleven patients were treated with metronidazole. One patient did not respond to metronidazole and was treated with vancomycin. No patient developed complications of CDAD. Conclusions The prevalence of CDAD in our population was 8 % and of CA CDAD was 1.3 %. There was no advantage of testing two samples. ICU stay and tube feeding were major risk factors for the CDAD. Metronidazole was an effective first-line therapy.

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

3.8
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