Literature DB >> 7486465

Clostridium difficile colitis: an efficient clinical approach to diagnosis.

Y C Manabe1, J M Vinetz, R D Moore, C Merz, P Charache, J G Bartlett.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To define clinical and laboratory variables that suggest the presence of Clostridium difficile colitis and to establish the number of stool specimens needed to reasonably exclude the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis.
DESIGN: Prospective study of consecutive inpatients whose stool specimens were sent to be evaluated for the presence of C. difficile toxin.
SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 268 hospital inpatients in medical, surgical, and gynecology units. MEASUREMENTS: Structured history and physical examination; detection of C. difficile toxin by cytotoxin tissue-culture assay with anti-C. difficile antiserum neutralization and by enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA) for C. difficile toxins A and B; and detection of fecal leukocytes by microscopic examination and by latex agglutination lactoferrin assay.
RESULTS: 43 of 268 consecutive inpatients were positive for C. difficile toxin by EIA or tissue-culture assay. Although toxin was detected by EIA alone in 39 of the 43 patients, it was detected in an additional 4 patients (10%) by tissue-culture assay alone. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the following clinical and laboratory features were associated with C. difficile toxin positivity: the onset of diarrhea 6 or more days after the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.10 to 3.79]); hospital stay longer than 15 days (odds ratio, 1.33 [CI, 1.09 to 3.95]); the presence of fecal leukocytes determined by microscopy (odds ratio, 2.39 [CI, 1.05 to 5.42]) or lactoferrin assay (odds ratio, 3.74 [CI, 1.80 to 7.76]); the presence of semiformed (as opposed to watery) stools (odds ratio, 2.33 [CI, 1.10 to 4.90]); and cephalosporin use (odds ratio, 2.36 [CI, 1.10 to 5.09]). Toxin-positive patients were no more likely than controls to have had fever, abdominal pain or cramps, leukocytosis, green-colored diarrhea, or blood in the stool or to have received clindamycin or penicillin derivatives. Of the 43 patients with C. difficile toxin, 34 (79%) had positive results for the toxin on the first stool specimen, 5 (cumulative, 91%) had positive results on the second specimen, and 4 had positive results on the third specimen. Overall, the negative predictive value of the first stool specimen was 97%. All patients who had two or more clinical or laboratory predictors were diagnosed with C. difficile disease when either the first or the second stool specimen was positive for toxin.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians at the bedside can use readily available clinical and laboratory information to decide which patients are likely to have C. difficile disease and when it is appropriate and useful to order specific diagnostic tests for C. difficile toxin. Such data are also useful in determining the number of stool samples that reasonably excludes the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7486465     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-11-199512010-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  34 in total

1.  Teaching resource and information management using an innovative case-based conference.

Authors:  S J Kravet; S M Wright; J A Carrese
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Review of medical and surgical management of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  B Faris; A Blackmore; N Haboubi
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2010-05-08       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  Frequency of sample submission for optimal utilization of the cell culture cytotoxicity assay for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.

Authors:  Anita P Borek; Deborah Z Aird; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Evaluation of biosite triage Clostridium difficile panel for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples.

Authors:  M L Landry; J Topal; D Ferguson; D Giudetti; Y Tang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Effective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a two-step algorithm including tests for antigen and cytotoxin.

Authors:  John R Ticehurst; Deborah Z Aird; Lisa M Dam; Anita P Borek; John T Hargrove; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Fecal lactoferrin screening assay for inflammatory bacterial diarrhea.

Authors:  I Nachamkin
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea in hospitalised patients: onset in the community and hospital and role of flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  S S Johal; J Hammond; K Solomon; P D James; Y R Mahida
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  To culture or not to culture: fecal lactoferrin screening for inflammatory bacterial diarrhea.

Authors:  S W Choi; C H Park; T M Silva; E I Zaenker; R L Guerrant
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 5.948

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

Authors:  Meghraj Ingle; Abhijit Deshmukh; Devendra Desai; Philip Abraham; Anand Joshi; Tarun Gupta; Camilla Rodrigues
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-24

10.  New advances in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI).

Authors:  Dennis D Hedge; Joe D Strain; Jodi R Heins; Debra K Farver
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.423

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.