4.6 Article

Clostridioides difficile infections in the intensive care unit: a monocentric cohort study

Journal

INFECTION
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 421-427

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-020-01413-8

Keywords

Clostridioides difficile; Intensive care; Diarrhea; Morbidity; Mortality

Funding

  1. Morphochem

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Patient-level data from Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) treated in an intensive care setting is limited, despite the growing medical and financial burden of CDI. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from 100 medical intensive care unit patients at the University Hospital Cologne with respect to demography, diagnostics, severity scores, treatment, and outcome. To analyze factors influencing response to treatment and death, a backward-stepwise multiple logistic regression model was applied. Results Patients had significant comorbidities including 26% being immunocompromised. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6.3 (10-year survival rate of 2.25%). At the time of diagnosis, the APACHE II was 17.4 +/- 6.3 (predicted mortality rate of 25%), and the ATLAS score was 5.2 +/- 1.9 (predicted cure rate of 75%). Overall, 47% of CDI cases were severe, 35% were complicated, and 23% were both. At least one concomitant antibiotic was given to 74% of patients. The cure rate after 10 and 90 days was 56% and 51%, respectively. Each unit increment in APACHE II score was associated with poorer treatment response (OR 0.931; 95% CI 0.872-0.995; p = 0.034). Age above 65 years was associated with death (OR 2.533; 95% CI 1.031-6.221; p = 0.043), and overall mortality at 90 days was 56%. Conclusions CDI affects a high-risk population, in whom predictive scoring tools are not accurate, and outcomes are poor despite intensive treatment. Further research in this field is warranted to improve prediction scoring and patient outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available