An Evaluation of Repeat Stool Testing for Clostridium difficile Infection by Polymerase Chain Reaction

被引:25
|
作者
Khanna, Sahil [1 ]
Pardi, Darrell S. [1 ]
Rosenblatt, Jon E. [4 ]
Patel, Robin [2 ,3 ]
Kammer, Patricia P. [1 ]
Baddour, Larry M. [3 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Coll Med, Rochester, MN USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Div Clin Microbiol, Coll Med, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Div Infect Dis, Coll Med, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Dept Lab Med & Pathol, Coll Med, Rochester, MN USA
关键词
Clostridium difficile infection; polymerase chain reaction; laboratory testing; screening efficacy; CULTURE CYTOTOXICITY ASSAY; REAL-TIME PCR; ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY; DIAGNOSIS; TOXIN; DIARRHEA; GUIDELINES; COLITIS; SOCIETY; SAMPLES;
D O I
10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182432273
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Goals: To evaluate the yield of repeat stool polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in patients with suspected Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Background: CDI is a major challenge in health care due to its frequent occurrence and high associated costs. Enzyme immunoassay and PCR are commonly performed diagnostic tests for CDI. Methods: Our microbiology laboratory database was queried from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010 for all patients who underwent PCR stool testing for suspected CDI. Data collected included age, sex, number of stool tests performed within a 14-day period after the first test, and location of patient (inpatient vs. outpatient). Analyses were performed using JMP version 9.0.1. Results: PCR testing was performed in 15,515 patients. The median age was 58.3 years (range, 10 d to 104.3 y) and 46.2% of patients were women. Repeat testing was infrequent; 87.3% of patients had testing performed only once in a 14-day period. Increased age, male sex, and inpatient location were predictors of repeat testing. The median time between an initial test and the first repeat test was 5 days. After an initial negative test, the percentage of patients having a subsequent positive test was low (2.7% in 7 d and 3.2% in 14 d). The percentage of repeat tests that was positive within 7 days (2.9%) was lower than the percentage that was positive from day 8 to day 14 (4.8%, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Repeat testing for C. difficile has a low yield, and patients with an initial negative test should not routinely be retested.
引用
收藏
页码:846 / 849
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comprehensive evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection
    Makristathis, A.
    Zeller, I.
    Mitteregger, D.
    Kundi, M.
    Hirschl, A. M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY & INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2017, 36 (07) : 1253 - 1259
  • [32] Stool Polymerase Chain Reaction for Helicobacter pylori Detection and Clarithromycin Susceptibility Testing in Children
    Vecsei, Andreas
    Innerhofer, Albina
    Binder, Christa
    Gizci, Heidi
    Hammer, Karin
    Bruckdorfer, Andrea
    Riedl, Stefan
    Gadner, Helmut
    Hirschl, Alexander M.
    Makristathis, Athanasios
    CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2010, 8 (03) : 309 - 312
  • [33] Evaluation of Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Infection Based on Immunochromatography Testing and Toxigenic Culture Assay
    Ohshima, Toshio
    Osaki, Takako
    Yamamoto, Yukari
    Asai, Satomi
    Miyachi, Hayato
    Kamiya, Shigeru
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2018, 56 (12)
  • [34] Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-based method for selectively detecting vegetative cells of toxigenic Clostridium difficile
    Senoh, Mitsutoshi
    Kato, Haru
    Murase, Tomoko
    Hagiya, Hideharu
    Tagashira, Yasuaki
    Fukuda, Tadashi
    Iwaki, Masaaki
    Yamamoto, Akihiko
    Shibayama, Keigo
    MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2014, 58 (11) : 615 - 620
  • [35] Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Detection of Asymptomatic Clostridium difficile Colonization and Rising C. difficile-Associated Disease Rates
    Koo, Hoonmo L.
    Van, John N.
    Zhao, Meina
    Ye, Xunyan
    Revell, Paula A.
    Jiang, Zhi-Dong
    Grimes, Carolyn Z.
    Koo, Diana C.
    Lasco, Todd
    Kozinetz, Claudia A.
    Garey, Kevin W.
    DuPont, Herbert L.
    INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 35 (06) : 667 - 673
  • [36] Reevaluation of the Premier Clostridium difficile toxin A and B immunoassay with comparison to glutamate dehydrogenase common antigen testing evaluating Bartels cytotoxin and Prodesse ProGastro™ Cd polymerase chain reaction as confirmatory procedures
    Doing, Kirk M.
    Hintz, Marilyn S.
    Keefe, Calvin
    Horne, Sarah
    LeVasseur, Shelby
    Kulikowski, Martha L.
    DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2010, 66 (02) : 129 - 134
  • [37] Evaluation of 4 molecular assays as part of a 2-step algorithm for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens
    Caulfield, Adam J.
    LaSalle, Catherine M. Bolster
    Chang, Yu-Hui H.
    Grys, Thomas E.
    DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2018, 91 (01) : 1 - 5
  • [38] Evaluation of a commercial real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of environmental contamination with Clostridium difficile
    Deshpande, A.
    Kundrapu, S.
    Sunkesula, V. C. K.
    Cadnum, J. L.
    Fertelli, D.
    Donskey, C. J.
    JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2013, 85 (01) : 76 - 78
  • [39] TESTING ALGORITHM IN CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE INFECTION
    Stofkova, Zuzana
    Novakova, Elena
    Sadlonova, Vladimira
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY BIOTECHNOLOGY AND FOOD SCIENCES, 2020, 9 (06): : 1211 - 1214
  • [40] Prescription Surveillance and Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing to Identify Pathogens during Outbreaks of Infection
    Sugiura, Hiroaki
    Fujimoto, Tsuguto
    Sugawara, Tamie
    Hanaoka, Nozomu
    Konagaya, Masami
    Kikuchi, Kiyoshi
    Hanada, Eisuke
    Okabe, Nobuhiko
    Ohkusa, Yasushi
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 2013