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

6Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Aguilar, R. C., Salmanton-García, J., Carney, J., Böll, B., Kochanek, M., Jazmati, N., … Vehreschild, M. J. G. T. (2020). Clostridioides difficile infections in the intensive care unit: a monocentric cohort study. Infection, 48(3), 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-020-01413-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free