4.7 Article

Clostridium difficile infection in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 782-788

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.02.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: There has been an increase in the incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in the U.S. The importance of C difficile infection in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is unknown. This study was designed to determine risk of acquiring C difficile infection in pouch disorders. Methods: Consecutive ulcerative colitis patients (n = 115) with IPAA undergoing pouch endoscopy were enrolled from May 2005-March 2006. Fecal specimens of pouch aspirate were collected during pouch endoscopy and analyzed for C difficile toxin A and B by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Nineteen clinical, endoscopic, and histologic variables were assessed with stepwise selection methods. Two multivariate logistic regression models were constructed. Results: Twenty-one patients (18.3%) were positive for C difficile infection. Adjusting for other factors in the model, men were 5.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.38-20.46) times more likely to have C difficile infection than women. Compared with patients with pancolitis, those with preoperative left-sided colitis were 8.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.25-56.4) times more likely to have C difficile infection. Six of 6 patients with C difficile infection (3 with refractory pouchitis, 2 with Crohn's disease, and 1 with irritable pouch syndrome) with repeat clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory evaluation after anti-C difficile therapy experienced clinical remission and disappearance of C difficile toxin from stools, with 4 showing decreased mucosal inflammation. Conclusions: C difficile infection involving IPAA is common, characteristically occurring with or without previous receipt of antibiotics. Treatment of C difficile infection in patients with IPAA might improve the clinical outcome.

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

4.7
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