Skip to main content
Download PDF

WSES guidelines for management of Clostridium difficile infection in surgical patients

World Journal of Emergency Surgery volume 10, Article number: 38 (2015) Cite this article

Abstract

In the last two decades there have been dramatic changes in the epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), with increases in incidence and severity of disease in many countries worldwide. The incidence of CDI has also increased in surgical patients. Optimization of management of C difficile, has therefore become increasingly urgent. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts prepared evidenced-based World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for management of CDI in surgical patients.

Executive summary

In the last two decades, the dramatic increase in incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in many countries worldwide [1], has made CDI a global public health challenge [2–5]. Recently two comprehensive sets of guidelines for management of CDI were published [6, 7] that do not address issues specifically with regard to surgeons. CDI in surgical patients is of particular interest. Surgery, especially gastrointestinal surgery, may predispose patients to the development of CDI. Surgery is also a treatment option in severe cases of CDI [8–11]. Optimization of the perioperative CDI patient management is therefore necessary for reduction in health care costs, as well as patient morbidity and mortality. To provide empirical guidelines for the surgeon called upon to assist in the care of the CDI patient, an international multidisciplinary panel of experts worldwide have prepared these evidenced-based guidelines for the management of C. difficile infection. In constituting the expert panel, the board of World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) involves many of the world’s leading surgical experts in management of CDI. This expert panel includes professionals who treat CDI patients on a daily basis as well as those with research interests in the condition. These guidelines outline clinical recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy criteria summarized in Table 1 [12, 13].

Table 1 Grading of recommendations from Guyatt and colleagues [12, 13]
Full size table

Recommendations

Diagnosis

1) Stool testing should only be performed on diarrhea stools from at-risk patients with clinically significant diarrhea (Recommendation 1 C).

2) For patients with ileus who may be unable to produce stool specimens, polymerase chain reaction testing of perirectal swabs may be an accurate and efficient method to detect toxigenic C. difficile in patients with symptoms of CDI (Recommendation 2B).

3) Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for C. difficile toxin genes appear to be sensitive and specific and may be used as a standard diagnostic test for CDI. NAAT as single-step algorithm can increase detection of asymptomatic colonization therefore it should only be performed in patients with clinical suspicion for CDI (Recommendation 1 B).

4) Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening tests for C. difficile are sensitive but do not differentiate between toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains. They may be used in association with toxin A and B EIA testing. Algorithms involving screening with an EIA for GDH followed by a toxin assay may be used (Recommendation 1 B).

5) Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxin A/B is fast and inexpensive and has high specificity but it is not recommended alone due to its relatively low sensitivity. (Recommendation 1 B).

6) Clostridium difficile culture is relatively slow but sensitive. It is rarely performed today as a routine diagnostic test. C. difficile culture is recommended for subsequent epidemiological typing and characterization of strains (Recommendation 1 C).

7) Repeat testing within 7 days should not be performed on patients who previously tested negative unless the clinical picture has changed significantly (Recommendation 1 C).

8) Immunocompromised patients (including patients in chemotherapy, chronic corticosteroid therapy or immunosuppressive agents, and post-transplant patients) should be always tested for CDI if they have a diarrheal illness (Recommendation 1 C).

9) CT imaging is suggested for suspected severe-complicated C. difficile colitis, however its sensitivity is not satisfactory for screening purposes (Recommendation 2 B).

10) Ultrasound may be useful in critically ill patients suspected to have pseudomembranous colitis who cannot be transported for CT scan (Recommendation 2 C).

11) Flexible sigmoidoscopy may be helpful for the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis (CDC) when there is a high level of clinical suspicion for C. difficile despite repeated negative laboratory assays (Recommendation 2 B).

Antimicrobial therapy

12) Unnecessary antimicrobial agent(s) and proton pump inhibitors should be discontinued if CDI is suspected (Recommendation 1 C).

13) Empirical therapy for CDI should be avoided unless there is a strong suspicion for CDI. If a patient has a strong suspicion for CDI, empirical therapy for CDI should be considered while awaiting test results (Recommendation 1 B).

14) Metronidazole is recommended for the treatment of mild-moderate disease (Recommendation 1 A).

15) Oral vancomycin is recommended for treatment of patients with severe disease, or for patients with mild-moderate disease who do not respond to metronidazole. (Recommendation 1 A).

16) In patients in whom oral antibiotics cannot reach the colon, vancomycin may be administered by enema and metronidazole can be given intravenously (Recommendation 1 B).

17) Fidaxomicin may be used to treat CDI, especially in the patients at higher risk for recurrence (e.g. elderly patients with severe underlying disease or those requiring receiving concomitant antibiotics) (Recommendation 1 A).

Surgical management

18) Patients with severe CDI who progress to systemic toxicity should undergo early surgical consultation and evaluated for potential surgical intervention (Recommendation 1 C).

19) Resection of the entire colon should be considered to treat patients with fulminant colitis (FC) (Recommendation 1 B).

20) Diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage may be a useful alternative to resection of entire colon (Recommendation 2 C).

21) Patients with FC should be treated with high dose oral or by enema vancomycin (500 mg, 6 hourly) in combination with intravenous metronidazole (500 mg, 8 hourly). (Recommendation 1 C).

Supportive care

22) Supportive measures, including intravenous fluid resuscitation and electrolyte replacement, should be provided to all patients with severe C. difficile infection (Recommendation 1 C).

23) Early detection of shock and aggressive management of underlying organ dysfunction are essential for optimum outcomes in patients with fulminant colitis (Recommendation 1 C).

Recurrent C. difficile infection (RCDI)

24) Agents that may be used to treat the first recurrence of CDI include metronidazole, for non-severe RCDI, and vancomycin for severe RCDI. (Recommendation 1 B).

25) Fidaxomicin may be used as an alternative agent (Recommendation 1 B).

26) In subsequent recurrence of CDI (2nd or later) oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin is recommended (Recommendation 1 B).

Probiotics

27) Probiotics may be considered as an adjunctive treatment to antibiotics for immunocompetent patients with RCDI (Recommendation 2 B).

Faecal microbiota transplantation

28) Intestinal or faecal microbiota transplantation (IMT or FMT) may be an effective option for the treatment of RCDI (Recommendation 1 B).

29) FMT may be effective in immunocompromised patients and patients who have had solid organ transplants (Recommendation 2 B).

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG)

30) IVIG should only be used as adjunct therapy in patients with multiple recurrent or fulminant CDI until results from large, randomized controlled trials are available (Recurrence 2 C).

Monoclonal antibodies

31) Infusion with monoclonal antibodies may be of use to prevent recurrences of CDI, particularly in patients with CDI due to the 027 epidemic strain (Recommendation 2 C).

Enteral nutrition in CDI

32) Tube feeding patients should be clinically assessed due to their risk for developing CDI (Recommendation 2 C).

Anti-motility agents

33) The use of anti-peristaltic agents for the treatment of CDI should be discouraged. If anti-peristaltic, if used in isolation agents, are used to control persistent symptoms in patients with CDI they must always be accompanied by medical therapy (Recommendation 2 C).

Prevention

34) Proper antimicrobial stewardship in selecting an appropriate antibiotic and optimizing its dose and duration to cure an infection may prevent the emergence of C. difficile (Recommendation 1 B).

35) Patients with suspected or proven CDI should be placed in contact (enteric) precautions (Recommendation 1 B).

36) Hand hygiene with soap and water is a cornerstone of the prevention of C. difficile. Hand hygiene, contact precautions and good cleaning and disinfection of the environment and patient care equipment, should be used by all health-care workers contacting any patient with known or suspected CDI (Recommendation 1 B).

Introduction

C. difficile is an anaerobic, spore forming Gram-positive bacillus, which may form part of the normal intestinal microbiota in healthy newborns but which is rarely present in the gut of healthy adults [14–16]. The organism is spread via the oral-fecal route and in hospitalized patients may be acquired through the ingestion of spores or vegetative bacteria spread to patients by healthcare personnel’s hands or from the environment [17, 18]. It is the most common cause of diarrhea in hospitalized patients.

Pathogenesis

Clostridium difficile spores survive the acidic environment of the stomach and germinate in the intestine [19]. They act as an environmental reservoir for C. difficile and can facilitate spread among patients, as well as contributing to the high recurrence rates observed in CDI. The primary toxins produced by this bacterium are toxins A and B [20]. Some strains of C. difficile also produce binary toxin. Toxins A and B act as glucosyltransferases, promoting the activation of Rho GTPases leading to disorganization of the cytoskeleton of the colonocyte, and eventual cell death [21]. Since CDI is a toxin mediated infection, non toxigenic C. difficile strains are non-pathogenic. Over the years the respective roles and importance toxins A and B has been debated. Toxin A was thought to be the major virulence factor for many years, [22–24]. It is now established that both toxins A and B are important for inducing colonocyte death and colitis. In addition to toxins A and B, some strains produce a third toxin known as binary toxin [25–29]. Binary toxin has an ADP-ribosyltransferase function, which also leads to actin depolymerization [30, 31]. It has been demonstrated in C. difficile strains associated with nosocomial outbreaks of CDI with increased clinical severity [32, 33].

Typing is useful to differentiate C. difficile strains and to obtain epidemiological information. Different typing methods for C. difficile are actually available: restriction endonuclease analysis (REA), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), multilocus sequence typing (MLST), repetitive-element PCR typing, toxinotyping, multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) and PCR- ribotyping [34].

C. difficile strains with increased virulence traits (hyper virulent), have been described in the last 10 years. In particular, PCR-ribotype 027, also known as North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1 (NAP1) or restriction endonuclease analysis group BI, has been associated with increased disease severity, recurrence and significant mortality [35].

Asymptomatic colonization may occur in 6 to 50 % of long-term care facility residents depending on whether CDI is endemic [36, 37]. In a 15-month prospective study of 4143 patients performed in six Canadian hospitals in Quebec and Ontario [38], 184 (4.4 %) had asymptomatic colonization at the time of unit admission, and 123 (3.0 %) had health care–associated C. difficile colonization.

Risk factors

Risk factors for CDI may be divided into three general categories: host factors (immune status, co-morbidities), exposure to CD spores (hospitalizations, community sources, long-term care facilities) and factors that disrupt normal colonic microbiome (antibiotics, other medications, surgery) [39].

Host factors

Risk factors identified to date include, age more than 65 years, comorbidity or underlying conditions, inflammatory bowel diseases, immunodeficiency (including human immunodeficiency virus infection, hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy), malnutrition, and low serum albumin level [3, 40]. Diabetes mellitus is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for hospital and community-acquired CDI [41]. More recently, gene polymorphisms (e.g. IL-8) may be associated with increased risk for CDI but further studies are needed [42].

The effect of prior appendectomy on the development of C. difficile colitis has been debated in literature [43].

A recent review by Seretis et al. [44] of five studies conducted retrospectively was published in 2014. Although the results were conflicting regarding the impact of prior appendectomy on the occurrence or relapse of CDI, it appeared that an in situ appendix did not impact on the development of CDI.

In the retrospective analysis by Clanton et al. [45] on 55 patients who underwent colectomy for CDI between 2001 and 2011, a prior appendectomy was noted in 24 of 55 specimens (44, 99 % CI: 0.280–0.606). This was compared to an observed lifetime rate of appendectomy of 17.6 %. The rate of appendectomy in the cohort of patients who later underwent colectomy for CDI was significantly higher than would be expected in the general population (44 % vs 18 %, P < 0.01).

In a second retrospective study [46], of 388 patients with an intact appendix, 20 (5.2 %) developed fulminant infection and required colectomy, whereas of the 119 patients with a previous appendectomy, 13 (10.9 %) required colectomy. An increased severity of disease, indicated by increased rate of colectomy, occurred for the group with a history of appendectomy (P = 0.03).

A sub-group analysis of a large population based study published in 2013 [47] showed that appendectomy was not associated with adverse outcomes in CDI. Patients with appendectomy before CDI had no differences in risk factors, treatment, or outcomes including treatment failure, development of severe or severe-complicated CDI, and recurrence rates as compared with patients without appendectomy.

Larger prospective studies are needed to assess the impact of prior appendectomy on development and severity of CDI.

Exposure to Clostridium difficile spores

Factors that increase risk of exposure to C. difficile spores, such as increased duration of hospital stay may increase the risk of CDI. A length of stay > 2 weeks has been shown to be a risk factor for CDI [48]. Hospitals with well implemented infection prevention and control measures may reduce the risk of patients of developing CDI [49].

Normal flora disruption

The indigenous gut microbiota is the complex community of microorganisms that populates the gastrointestinal tract. This micro-ecosystem plays a crucial role in protecting the intestines by providing resistance to colonization and infection by pathogenic organisms [50]. Gut microbiota also has immeasurable effects on homeostasis in the host [51]. Under normal conditions, the human gut microbiota may impede pathogen colonisation through general mechanisms such as direct inhibition through bacteriocins, nutrient depletion (consuming growth-limiting nutrients) or stimulation of host immune defences [38] though the exact mechanism by which the microbiota protects against CDI is unknown [52]. Disruption of the normal balance of colonic microbiota as a consequence of antibiotic use or other stressors, is, however, likely to be important [53].

Antibiotic exposure

It is presumabed that disruption of the normal gut flora provides a perfect setting for C. difficile to proliferate and produce toxin.

The risk of CDI is increased up to 6-fold during and in the subsequent month after antibiotic therapy [54]. Although nearly all antibiotics have been associated with CDI, clindamycin, third-generation cephalosporins, penicillins and fluoroquinolones have traditionally been considered to pose the greatest risk [55–61]. An association between CDI and antimicrobial treatment > 10 days has also been demonstrated [62, 63]. Antibiotics which have been less commonly associated with CDI include macrolides, sulfonamides and tetracyclines [64]. Even very limited exposure, such as single-dose surgical antibiotic prophylaxis may increase patients risk for both C. difficile colonization [65, 66] or infection.

Other medications

Exposure to gastric acid-suppressive medications, such as histamine-2 blockers and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be a potential risk factor for development of CDI. Recent studies have suggested the association between use of stomach acid–suppressive medications, primarily PPIs, and CDI [67, 68]. In 2012 a systematic review of [69] 42 observational studies (30 case–control, 12 cohort) totalling 313,000 participants were evaluated for incident and recurrent CDI in PPI users. Despite the substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity, the findings indicated a probable association between PPI use and incident and recurrent CDI. This risk was further increased by concomitant use of antibiotics and PPI. Other studies suggested that this association may be the result of confounding with the underlying severity of illness and duration of hospital stay [70]. Given that acid suppression drugs, especially PPIs, may be over- prescribed in surgical settings consideration should be given to stopping PPIs in patients at high risk of CDI.

Surgery

Recent reports have linked the development of CDI in surgical patients with widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, increasing numbers of elderly and immunocompromised patients undergoing surgical interventions and the emergence of more virulent strains of C. difficile [8, 71, 72].

Abdelsattar et al. [11] prospectively identified patients with laboratory-confirmed postoperative CDI after different general, vascular, or gynaecological surgeries at 52 academic and community hospitals in the state of Michigan, USA between July 2012 and September 2013. The highest rates of CDI occurred after lower-extremity amputation (2.6 %), followed by bowel resection or repair (0.9 %) and gastric or esophageal operations (0.7 %). Gynaecological and endocrine operations had the lowest rates (0.1 and 0 %, respectively). Using multivariable analyses, older age, chronic immunosuppression, hypoalbuminemia (≤3.5 g/dL) and preoperative sepsis were associated with CDI. Use of prophylactic antibiotics was not independently associated with CDI, neither was sex, body mass index (BMI), surgical priority, weight loss, or comorbid conditions.

Zerey et al. [8] performed a five-year retrospective analysis of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Inpatient Sample Database representing a stratified 20 % sample of hospitals in the United States, from 1999 to 2003. Patients undergoing an emergency operation were at higher risk of CDI than those having operations performed electively. Colectomy, small-bowel resection, and gastric resection were associated with the highest risk of CDI. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy and appendectomy had the lowest risk.

In 2010, Rodriguez et al. [73] published a retrospective analysis of all general surgery inpatients admitted to a large tertiary referral general surgical unit in the United Kingdom, between March 2005 and May 2007. Multivariate analysis identified malignancy, gastrointestinal disease, anemia, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, diabetes mellitus, those undergoing gastrointestinal surgery and increasing age to be independently associated with C. difficile.

To assess risk factors associated with CDI on a surgical ward, in 2012 Kim et al. conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients admitted between January 2010 and July 2011 [74]. The rate of CDI occurrence was 0.4 % (19/4,720 patients). Multivariate analysis showed that colectomy and hospital stays longer than 10 days were the highest risk factors for CDI occurrence in the surgical ward.

Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database, Yasunaga et al. [75] analyzed factors affecting the occurrence of CDI and the outcomes of CDI following digestive tract surgery. Of 143,652 patients undergoing digestive tract surgery, CDI was identified in 409 (0.28 %) patients. High mortality, long hospital stay and high costs were associated with postsurgical CDI.

Colo-rectal surgery is known as risk factor for CDI in surgical patients [76, 77]. Recently Damle et al. [78] published a retrospective analysis of patients who developed CDI following colorectal resection. Utilizing the U.S. University Health System Consortium database the authors identified adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery between 2008 and 2012. A total of 84,648 patients met study inclusion criteria. CDI occurred in 1,266 (1.5 %) patients during the study period. The strongest predictors of CDI were emergency procedure, inflammatory bowel disease, and severity of illness score. CDI was associated with a higher rate of complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, longer preoperative inpatient stay, 30-day readmission rate, and death within 30 days compared to non-CDI patients.

In 2008 Lumpkins et al. [79] published a retrospective observational study about the incidence of CDI in the critically injured trauma population. Five hundred eighty-one consecutive critically injured trauma patients were followed prospectively for development of CDI, diagnosed by toxin assay. Among 581 patients 19 cases of CDI were diagnosed (3.3 %). Intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, and hospital length of stay were significantly higher in the CDI patients. The diagnosis was made at mean of 17 days after admission; however, in four patients (21 %), the infections were diagnosed within six days of admission. Fourteen patients (74 %) had received therapeutic antibiotics for confirmed or suspected infection prior to the appearance of colitis; four patients (21 %) received only intraoperative prophylaxis, and one patient had no antibiotic exposure.

Recently Egorova et al. [80] reviewed the trend, hospital variability in CDI rates, in vascular surgery in USA. The rates of CDI after major vascular procedures including aortic abdominal aneurysm (AAA) repair, carotid endarterectomy or stenting, lower extremity revascularization (LER), and LE amputation were identified using Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 2000–2011. During the study period the rates of CDI after vascular procedures had increased by 74 % from 0.6 in 2000 to 1.05 % in 2011. In 2011, the highest rates were after ruptured AAA repair (3.3 %), followed by lower extremity amputations (2.3 %), and elective open AAA (1.3 %).

Iinflammatory bowel disease (IBD)

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may have increased risk of developing CDI, along with worse outcomes, higher rates of colectomy and higher rates of recurrence [81–84]. Patients with IBD also appear to have higher rates of asymptomatic carriage of C. difficile [85]. They receive various types of immunosuppressive drugs including steroids that has been found to increase the risk of CDI [86, 87].

The clinical presentation of an IBD exacerbation and CDI often is indistinguishable and requires a high index of suspicion for adequate treatment [6]. As the symptoms of CDI and an exacerbation of IBD (diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever and leukocytosis) overlap, the diagnosis of CDI may be delayed if it is not tested for [88]. In addition, in IBD patients with ileostomies, the development of acute enteritis as manifested by an increase in ileostomy output, nausea, fever and leukocytosis may also indicate CDI. The same is true for pouchitis, which presents as an increase in the number of stools per day [89]. In one study 10.7 % of patients with ileal pouch anal anastomosis, presenting with pouchitis, were found to have CDI [90].

In patients with IBD and severe colitis, empirical therapy directed against both CDI and treatment of an IBD flare should be started simultaneously while awaiting results of C. difficile testing [6].

Due to high rates of asymptomatic colonization of C. difficile in patients with IBD, only patients with increased diarrhea or new symptoms attributable to CDI should be tested for C. difficile toxin. Typical findings of CDI on colonoscopy are often absent in patients with IBD (0–13 % of cases) [91] which may be attributed to a weakened inflammatory response. There is no evidence from prospective studies to suggest that one antibiotic regimen is better than another for the treatment of CDI in IBD patients. Considering the worse outcomes seen in patients with IBD and CDI, some institutions use vancomycin as first line therapy. In a survey of North American gastroenterologists, there was no agreement on combination of antibiotics and immunomodulators in patients with an IBD flare and CDI [92]. The American College of Gastroenterology recommended with low quality supporting evidence, that ongoing immunosuppression can be maintained in patients with CDI but escalation of immunosuppression should be avoided.

Physicians should remain alert to the possibility of CDI in a patient with an IBD exacerbation to ensure rapid diagnosis and treatment. Early surgical consultation is also key for improving outcomes of patients with severe disease. Colectomy with preservation of the rectum may need to be considered for severely ill IBD patients with CDI.

Immunocompromise patients

It is well known that the rate of CDI in the post-transplant setting is higher [93]. It has also been reported that cancer patients have a higher risk compared with non-cancer patients [94] due to chemotherapy causing the immunosuppression. Recently two retrospective studies were published on CDI in cancer patients [95, 96].

In the first a total of 225 patients were included, and 39 of them (17.3 %) were diagnosed with CDI. Type of tumor significantly differed between CDI patients, thus relative risk in each type of cancer was calculated after adjusting for age, antibiotic exposure, corticosteroid, and proton-pump inhibitor use. Patients with gastrointestinal tumors were less prone to CDI. Conversely, breast cancer patients have a greater predisposition to CDI. Antibiotic treatment was found to be associated with an increasing risk for CDI in breast cancer patients [95].

In the second study of 277 cancer patients with diarrhea 41 (14.8 %) were C. difficile toxin-positive. Multivariate analysis showed that chemotherapy (OR, 8.308; 95 % CI, 1.997–34.572; P = 0.004) and a positive result of fecal occult blood test (OR, 8.475; 95 % CI, 1.463–49.109; P = 0.017) were independent risk factors for acquisition of CDI among cancer patients [96].

Patients with HIV/AIDS are at a high risk of being infected with C. difficile too. This relationship is stronger in those with low absolute CD4 T cell counts or who meet clinical criteria for an AIDS diagnosis [97].

The increased risk may be partially attributed to frequent hospitalization, exposure to antibiotics and antibiotic prophylaxis for opportunistic infections, but HIV related alterations in fecal microbiota, gut mucosal integrity, and humoral and cell mediated immunity may be also likely to play a role [98].

Community-acquired C. difficile infection (CA-CDI)

Community-acquired CDI (CA-CDI) has been demonstrated in populations previously thought to be at low-risk, including younger patients not previously exposed to antibiotics [99]. Suggested risk factors include increasing outpatient antibiotic prescriptions, greater use of acid-suppression medications, an increase in the proportion of asymptomatic carriers in the community and novel risk factors like food and water contamination [100]. A sub-group analysis of a population-based epidemiological study of CDI in Olmsted County, Minnesota from 1991–2005 was published in 2012 [101]. Of 157 CA-CDI cases, the median age was 50 years and 75.3 % were female. Among CA-CDI cases, 40 % required hospitalization, 20 % had severe and 4.4 % had severe-complicated infection, 20 % had treatment failure and 28 % had recurrent CDI.

Recently a systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between commonly prescribed medications and comorbidities with CA-CDI [41]. Twelve publications (n = 56,776 patients) met inclusion criteria. Antimicrobial (odds ratio, 6.18; 95 % CI 3.80–10.04) and corticosteroid (1.81; 1.15–2.84) exposure were associated with increased risk of CA-CDI. Among the comorbidities, inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio, 3.72; 95 % CI, 1.52–9.12), renal failure (2.64; 1.23–5.68), hematologic cancer (1.75; 1.02–5.68), and diabetes mellitus (1.15; 1.05–1.27) were associated with CA-CDI. By location, antimicrobial exposure was associated with a higher risk of CA-CDI in the United States, whereas proton-pump inhibitor exposure was associated with a higher risk in Europe. By life stages, the risk of CA-CDI associated with antimicrobial exposure greatly increased in adults older than 65 years.

Risk factors for recurrent CDI

In a meta-analysis by Garey et al. [102] found that continued use of non-C. difficile antibiotics after diagnosis of CDI (OR: 4.23; 95 % CI: 2.10–8.55; P < 0.001), concomitant receipt of antacid medications (OR: 2.15; 95 % CI: 1.13–4.08; P = 0.019), and older age (OR: 1.62; 95 % CI: 1.11–2.36; P = 0.0012) were significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrent CDI. Other factors identified in individual studies include age, hospital exposure, comorbid conditions, severe underlying illness, poor quality of life scores, initial disease severity and previous recurrent CDI [103, 104].

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis [105] was published to evaluate current evidence on the risk factors for recurrent CDI. A total of 33 studies (n = 18,530) met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent independent risk factors associated with recurrent CDI were age ≥65 years (risk ratio [RR], 1.63; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.24–2.14; P = .0005), additional antibiotics during follow-up (RR, 1.76; 95 % CI, 1.52–2.05; P < .001), use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) (RR, 1.58; 95 % CI, 1.13–2.21; P = .008), and renal insufficiency (RR, 1.59; 95 % CI, 1.14–2.23; P = .007). The risk was also greater in patients previously on fluoroquinolones (RR, 1.42; 95 % CI, 1.28–1.57; P < .001).

Clinical manifestations

The spectrum of symptomatic CDI ranges from mild diarrhea to severe disease or fulminant colitis and as many as 30 % of patients may develop recurrent CDI [106, 107].

Though diarrhea is the hallmark symptom of CDI it may not be present initially, possibly due to colonic dysmotility either from previous underlying conditions or possibly from the disease process itself [108].

This is especially important in surgical patients who may have a concomitant ileus. Therefore, in surgical patients it is important to have a high index of suspicion for the development of CDI.

Mild-moderate CDI

Diarrhea may be accompanied by mild abdominal pain and cramps and if prolonged may result in altered electrolyte balance and dehydration. When this occurs in patients with severe comorbidity, particularly after surgery, non-severe CDI may increase morbidity significantly [109].

Severe CDI

Severe CDI is associated with increased abdominal cramping and pain and constitutional features such as fever, leukocytosis, and hypoalbuminemia. The absence of diarrhoea in these patients may signal a progression to fulminant infection [110]. Though a wide variety of severity predictors for severe CDI has been described [111–115] international consensus for the definition of severe CDI is lacking [6, 7, 116].

One systematic review identifying risk factors for adverse outcomes of CDI was published by Abou Chakra et al. in 2012 [114]. Except for leukocytosis, albumin and age, there was much heterogeneity in the data and most studies were limited by small sample sizes.

To investigate the prognostic value of fever, leukocytosis, and renal failure, Bauer et al. [113] in 2012 analyzed the database of two randomized controlled trials, which contained information for 1105 patients with CDI. They found that both leucocytosis and renal failure were useful predictors of a complicated course of CDI. Miller et al. [115] in 2013 subsequently published an analysis of the same two clinical therapeutic trials to validate a categorization system to stratify CDI patients into severe or mild-moderate groups. A combination of five simple and commonly available clinical and laboratory variables (ATLAS) measured at the time of CDI diagnosis were able to accurately predict treatment response to CDI therapy. The ATLAS criteria included: age, treatment with systemic antibiotics, leucocyte count, albumin and serum creatinine [115].

Any of the following may be predictors of severe CDI:

  • WBC >15 × 109/L

  • Acutely rising serum creatinine

  • Temperature >38.5 °C

  • Albumin <2.5 mg/dL

The progression to fulminant C. difficile colitis is relatively infrequent [109] (1–3 % of all CDI) although mortality in this group of patients remains high due to the development of toxic megacolon with colonic perforation, peritonitis and septic shock and subsequent organ dysfunction. Systemic symptoms may result from toxin-induced inflammatory mediators released locally in the colon [117–119]. Studies have demonstrated a significant rise in the number of cases of fulminant colitis associated with multiple organ failure and increased mortality in recent years associated with the hypervirulent 027 strain of C. difficile [120, 121]. Early diagnosis and treatment is therefore important in reducing the mortality associated with fulminant colitis. Patients who present with organ failure including increased serum lactate or vasopressor requirements, should be assessed immediately with regard to early operative intervention [121].

Recurrent CDI (RCDI)

Recurrence of symptoms after initial therapy for C. difficile, develops in 10–30 % of cases, and this often presents a clinical challenge. Patients may have several episodes of recurrence that may occur over a period of years [122–127]. Recurrence and reinfection are therefore difficult to distinguish by symptoms alone, but may be distinguished if the strain of C. difficile is typed.

RCDI may be either a consequence of germinating resident spores remaining in the colon after antibiotic treatment has stopped, or re-infection from an environmental source.

Even though consensus regarding factors associated with CDI recurrence is not universal learning algorithms have been developed to predict CDI recurrence with good sensitivity [128].

Ultimately distinction between recurrence and reinfection can only be achieved if the strain of C. difficile is ‘typed’ using molectular epidemiology [129].

Wider consequences of CDI

Patients who develop CDI have increased hospital length-of-stay, higher medical care costs, more hospital re-admissions, and higher mortality [130–132].

These consequences are also found for surgical patients with CDI.

In the Zerey et al. analysis [8] epidemiologic data suggested that the infection was most prevalent after emergency operations and among patients having intestinal tract resections. Infection with C. difficile was an independent predictor of increased length of stay, which increased by 16.0 days (95 % CI 15.6, 16.4 days; p < 0.0001) in the presence of infection. Total charges increased by $77,483 (95 % CI $75,174, $79,793; p < 0.0001), and there was a 3.4-fold increase in the mortality rate (95 % CI 3.02, 3.77; p < 0.0001) compared with patients who did not acquire C. difficile.

In the Abdelsattar et al. study [11] three procedure groups had higher odds of postoperative CDI: lower-extremity amputations (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.5; P = .03), gastric or esophageal operations (aOR, 2.1; P = .04), and bowel resection or repair (aOR, 2; P = .04). Postoperative CDI was independently associated with increased length of stay (mean, 13.7 days vs 4.5 days), emergency department presentations (18.9 vs 9.1 %) and readmissions (38.9 vs 7.2 %, all P < .001).

Data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample database in patients who underwent vascular surgery [79], showed that in 2011 patients who had experienced CDI had median length of stay 15 days (IQR 9, 25 days) compared with 8.3 days for matched patients without CDI, in-hospital mortality 9.1 % (compared to 5.0 %), and $13,471 extra cost per hospitalization. The estimated cost associated with CDI in vascular surgery in the United States was about $98 million in 2011. Data from the National Inpatient Sample examined just patients with lumbar surgery and found CDI increased length of stay by 8 days, hospital costs by 2-fold and increased inpatient mortality by 36-fold [133].

Higher mortality was also observed for liver transplant recipients (from 2000 to 2010) at Detroit hospital [134].

The ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2010 was used by Lee et al. to study emergently performed open colectomies for a primary diagnosis of C difficile colitis in US [135]. The overall mortality was 33 % (111/335). Age 80 years or older, preoperative dialysis dependence, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and wound class III were associated to patients mortality. Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 150 × 103/mm3), coagulopathy (International Normalized Ratio > 2.0), and renal insufficiency (blood urea nitrogen > 40 mg/dL) were associated with a higher mortality as well.

Recently a study was performed to quantify additional hospital stay attributable to CDI in four European countries, by analyzing nationwide hospital-episode data [5]. Patients in England had the longest additional hospital stay attributable to CDI at 16.09 days, followed by Germany at 15.47 days, Spain at 13.56 days, and The Netherlands at 12.58 days, derived using regression analysis. Propensity score matching indicated a higher attributable length of stay of 32.42 days in England, 15.31 days in Spain, and 18.64 days in The Netherlands. Outputs from this study consistently demonstrate that in European countries, for patients whose hospitalization is complicated by CDI, the infection causes a statistically significant increase in hospital length of stay.

Recommendations for the management of CDI

Diagnosis

1) Stool testing should only be performed on diarrhea stools from at-risk patients with clinically significant diarrhea (Recommendation 1 C).

2) For patients with ileus who may be unable to produce stool specimens, polymerase chain reaction testing of perirectal swabs may be an accurate and efficient method to detect toxigenic C. difficile in patients with symptoms of CDI (Recommendation 2B).

Prompt and precise diagnosis is important for the effective management of CDI.

Early identification of CDI allows early treatment and can potentially improve outcomes. Rapid isolation of infected patients is important in controlling the transmission of C. difficile [136].

The diagnosis of CDI is based on the presence of a clinical picture compatible with CDI and microbiological evidence of free toxin and/or the demonstration of toxigenic C. difficile in a diarrhea stool sample [136]. Clinical features include: diarrhea (defined as by passage of 3 or more unformed stools in 24 h), abdominal pain and cramps, abdominal distension, ileus (signs of severely disturbed bowel function) and toxic megacolon.

Since C. difficile can colonize the intestinal tract of healthy individuals, diagnostic testing for CDI should be performed only on diarrhea stools from symptomatic patients. Testing of formed stool can result in false positive tests, which may result in unnecessary antibiotic therapy.

One limitation of the reliance on stool specimens are the patients with suspected severe CDI complicated by ileus as these patients may be unable to produce specimens for testing. For these patients testing of perirectal swabs may be an accurate and efficient method to detect toxigenic C. difficile. In 2012 Kundrapu et al. [137] described the results of a prospective study of 139 patients being tested for Clostridium difficile infection by polymerase chain reaction. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of testing perirectal swabs were 95.7, 100, 100, and 99.1 %, respectively. The authors concluded that for selected patients, perirectal swabs provided an acceptable alternative to stool specimen analysis. Clinical context such as a history of recent antibiotic administration and/or residence in hospital are useful in selecting patients for testing. Other signs such as fever, abdominal pain, leukocytosis, in combination with other laboratory tests (e.g. creatinine and serum lactate) are useful for defining severity of infection.

3) Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for C. difficile toxin genes appear to be sensitive and specific and may be used as a standard diagnostic test for CDI. NAAT as single-step algorithm can increase detection of asymptomatic colonization therefore it should only be performed in patients with clinical suspicion for CDI (Recommendation 1 B).

4) Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening tests for C. difficile are sensitive but do not differentiate between toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains. They may be used in association with toxin A and B EIA testing. Algorithms involving screening with an EIA for GDH followed by a toxin assay may be used (Recommendation 1 B).

5) Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxin A/B is fast and inexpensive and has high specificity but it is not recommended alone due to its relatively low sensitivity. (Recommendation 1 B).

6) Clostridium difficile culture is relatively slow but sensitive. It is rarely performed today as a routine diagnostic test. C. difficile culture is recommended for subsequent epidemiological typing and characterization of strains (Recommendation 1 C).

7) Repeat testing within 7 days should not be performed on patients who previously tested negative unless the clinical picture has changed significantly (Recommendation 1 C).

The best standard laboratory test for diagnosis of CDI has not been clearly established [138]. In the past, toxigenic culture (TC) was accepted by many microbiologists as the method of choice for diagnosis of CDI. The procedure includes stool culture for C. difficile on a selective differential medium (cycloserine, cefoxitin, fructose agar or CCFA) and an assay to test the colonies for the ability to produce toxins. Despite the fact that TC is considered a gold standard method, there are significant issues including slow turnaround time and it’s inability to detect the presence of toxins in stool. This may also lead to false positive results given up to 7 % of asymptomatic hospitalized patients may be colonized with toxigenic C. difficile [139].

However, TC can still be used as a confirmatory test in symptomatic patients with toxin positive/GDH assay(s)-negative stool samples. C. difficile culture is also necessary for subsequent epidemiological typing and characterization of strains.

The EIA for toxin A/B has been adopted by most clinical laboratories because it is fast, convenient and inexpensive [140]. However, studies have shown that sensitivity can be low. Toxin A + B EIA tests have a described sensitivity of 32–98 % and a specificity of 84–100 % [141].

Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) is an enzyme produced by C. difficile in relatively large amounts compared with toxins A and B [142, 143]. A positive GDH assay only documents the presence of C. difficile but it does not discriminate between toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains (about 20 % of the C. difficile population). Therefore, a second test for toxin production is necessary for confirmation. GDH screening tests for C. difficile used in association to toxin A + B EIA testing gives an accurate test result quickly [140, 141] even if the sensitivity of such strategy is lower than nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs).

NAATs such as PCR for CD toxin genes have a high sensitivity and specificity, but not all laboratories routinely perform this assay [143]. A current topic of debate is whether a stool sample that was positive by a molecular assay needs to be tested with a confirmatory toxin assay [144] given it can also identify toxigenic C difficile in asymptomatic patients. This underscores the importance of only testing patients with symptoms. There is no evidence suggesting that surgical patients should be diagnosed any differently than general medical patients.

8) Immunocompromised patients (including patients in chemotherapy, chronic corticosteroid therapy, or immunosuppressive agents, and post-transplant patients) should be always tested for CDI if they have a diarrheal illness (Recommendation 1 C).

It has already been highlighted that immunocompromised patients including those on glucocorticoids, or chemotherapy and post-transplant patients are at increased risk for CDI.

9) CT imaging is suggested for suspected severe-complicated C. difficile colitis, however its sensitivity is not satisfactory for screening purposes (Recommendation 2 B).

CT has been studied as an imaging modality for diagnosing C. difficile colitis [145–148]. Typical CT findings of CDC include colonic wall thickening, dilation, pericolonic stranding, “accordion sign” (high-attenuation oral contrast in the colonic lumen alternating with low-attenuation inflamed mucosa), “double-halo sign, target sign” (intravenous contrast displaying varying degrees of attenuation caused by submucosal inflammation and hyperemia), and ascites [149]. However, the most common finding, colonic wall thickening is non-specific and can be found in other forms of colitis, although it may be more pronounced in that caused by C. difficile.

In the Kirkpatrick et al. study [150], CT diagnosis of CDC was made with a sensitivity of 52 %, a specificity of 93 %, and positive and negative predictive valued 88 %, and 67 % respectively. Sensitivity would have been increased to 70 % with no change in specificity if a colon wall thickness of greater than 4 mm had been used, in conjunction with the presence of colon wall nodularity, accordion sign, peri-colonic stranding, or otherwise unexplained ascites.

10) Ultrasound may be useful in critically ill patients suspected to have pseudomembranous colitis who cannot be transported for CT scan (Recommendation 2 C).

Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful in diagnosing and managing critically ill patients who cannot be moved to the radiology department [151].

Ultrasound findings of pseudomembranous colitis in severe cases include a thickened colonic wall with heterogeneous echogenity and narrowing of the colonic lumen [152]. Pseudomembranes can also be visualised as hyperechoic lines covering the mucosa [152–155].

In the early stages of pseudomembranous colitis, the texture of the colonic wall is preserved. The hypoechoic edematous mucosa and muscularis propria may be thickened with the echogenic submucosa sandwiched between them. The presence of submucosal gaps may indicate extension of tissue damage into deeper structures. Intraperitoneal free fluid is seen in more than 70 % of cases [153–155].

11) Flexible sigmoidoscopy may be helpful for the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis (CDC) when there is a high level of clinical suspicion for C. difficile despite repeated negative laboratory assays (Recommendation 2 B).

Endoscopy should be used sparingly to confirm the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis since the diagnosis can be usually made by laboratory tests, clinical findings and imaging. Moreover colonoscopy may be hazardous in the setting of fulminant colitis where there may be increased risk of perforation [156].

A study by Johal et al. [157] described the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy as a tool for the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis when stool assays were negative. Of 136 patients with C. difficile associated diarrhea (CDAD) 56 patients had pseudomembranous colitis at sigmoidoscopy. The stool C. difficile cytotoxin test was negative in 29 (52 %) but toxigenic C. difficile was isolated from all of nine stool samples cultured. Of patients with pseudomembranous colitis, 30.4 % relapsed over the subsequent 57.7 days. The authors concluded that sigmoidoscopy should be considered in all hospitalised patients with diarrhea in whom the stool tests for C. difficile cytotoxin and enteric pathogens are negative.

Emergency colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy may also reveal pseudomembranous colitis in patients too ill to wait for laboratory results.

Antimicrobial therapy

12) Unnecessary antimicrobial agent(s) and proton pump inhibitors should be discontinued if CDI is suspected (Recommendation 1 C).

13) Empirical therapy for CDI should be avoided unless there is a strong suspicion for CDI. If a patient has a strong suspicion for CDI, empirical therapy for CDI should be considered while awaiting test results (Recommendation 1 B).

In cases of suspected severe CDI, antimicrobial agent(s) should be discontinued, if possible [158].

A meta-analysis addressing factors associated with prolonged symptoms and severe disease due to Clostridium difficile showed that continued use of antimicrobials for infections other than CDI is significantly associated with an increased risk of CDI recurrence [159].

When antimicrobial therapy is indicated for symptomatic cases with a positive C. difficile toxin result, options include metronidazole, oral or intraluminal vancomycin and fidaxomicin [160–166].

14) Metronidazole is recommended for the treatment of mild-moderate disease (Recommendation 1 A).

Given at a dose of 500 mg orally 3 times a day for 10 days, metronidazole has been shown to be an inexpensive and effective treatment of non-severe CDI [167]. Metronidazole can also be administrated intravenously with or without intraluminal vancomycin in patients unable to take oral medication e.g. those with post-surgical ileus.

A Cochrane analysis published in 2011 [167] reviewed 15 studies on the antibiotic treatment for CDI in adults. In three randomized controlled trials comparing symptomatic cure between metronidazole and vancomycin, no statistically significant difference was found [167]. Symptomatic cure was achieved in 79 % of patients who received vancomycin compared with 71 % of patients who received metronidazole (three studies; 335 patients; RR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.81–1.03, p 0.14).

15) Oral vancomycin is recommended for treatment of patients with severe disease, or for patients with mild-moderate disease who do not respond to metronidazole. (Recommendation 1 A).

Vancomycin orally 125 mg four times daily for 10 days is considered superior to metronidazole in severe C. difficile disease [168–170]. This may reflect the superior pharmacokinetic properties of vancomycin which is concentrated in the gut lumen. Doses of up to 500 mg have been used in some patients with severe CDI [7] although there is little evidence for this in the literature.

16) In patients in whom oral antibiotics cannot reach the colon, vancomycin may be administered by enema and metronidazole can be given intravenously (Recommendation 1 B).

Intravenous vancomycin has no effect on CDI since the antibiotic is not excreted into the colon. Vancomycin enema may be an effective therapy for patients who cannot tolerate the oral preparation or patients with ileus who have delayed passage of oral antibiotics from the stomach to the colon. Trans-stoma vancomycin may also be effective in surgical patients with Hartmann resection, ileostomy, or colon diversion. A single-hospital, retrospective chart review on 47 consecutive patients with C. difficile colitis treated with intra-colonic vancomycin (ICV) was published by Kim PK et al. in 2013 [171]. Thirty-three of 47 patients (70 %) with severe C. difficile colitis responded to adjunct ICV with complete resolution without surgery. Multivariable analysis suggested that failures to intra-colonic vancomycin enemas occurred in patients who were older and frail with albumin < 2.5 g/dl and early surgery should be considered for those patients. Early surgery should also be offered to those patients who are failing maximal medical therapy that include ICV enemas.

17) Fidaxomicin may be used to treat CDI, especially in the patients at higher risk for recurrence (e.g. elderly patients with severe underlying disease or those requiring receiving concomitant antibiotics) (Recommendation 1 A).

Fidaxomicin orally 200 mg twice daily for 10 days may be an alternative to vancomycin in some patients with CDI [172, 173].

Fidaxomicin was non-inferior to vancomycin for initial cure of CDI in two prospective trials [164, 165]. In a first double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial [164] 629 adults with acute symptoms of C. difficile infection and a positive result on a stool toxin test were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily) or vancomycin (125 mg four times daily) orally for 10 days. The rates of clinical cure with fidaxomicin were non-inferior to those with vancomycin in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis (88.2 % with fidaxomicin and 85.8 % with vancomycin) and the per-protocol analysis (92.1 % and 89.8 %, respectively). Significantly fewer patients in the fidaxomicin group than in the vancomycin group had a recurrence of the infection, in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis and the per-protocol analysis. In a second multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial [165] 535 patients, 16 years or older with acute, toxin-positive C difficile infection were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive oral fidaxomicin (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. Non-inferiority was shown for both the modified intention-to-treat analysis (15.4 % vs. 25.3 %, P = 0.005) and the per-protocol analysis (13.3 % vs. 24.0 %, P = 0.004). Patients receiving concomitant antibiotics for other infections had a higher cure rate with fidaxomicin (46 [90 · 2 %] of 51) than with vancomycin (33 [73 · 3 %] of 45; p = 0 · 031). Fidaxomicin may be useful for treating patients who are considered at high risk for recurrence (elderly patients with multiple comorbidities who are receiving concomitant antibiotics). However, it is important to note that there are no data available on the efficacy of Fidaxomicin in severe life-threatening disease.

The use of other antibiotics such as tigecycline [174, 175] fusidic acid, teicoplanin, rifamixin [167] and nitazoxanide [176], has been described in the literature, but they are not currently recommended for general use.

Surgical management

Patients with fulminant colitis (FC) who progress to systemic toxicity require surgical intervention.

To determine clinical predictors for the development of fulminant colitis in patients with CDI a 10-year retrospective review of FC patients who underwent colectomy was performed and compared with randomly selected age- and sex-matched non-fulminant CDI patients at a single institution study by Girotra in 2012 [177]. Predictive clinical and laboratory features included: old age (>70 years), prior CDI, profound leukocytosis (>18,000/mm3), hemodynamic instability, use of anti-peristaltic medications, and a clinical triad of increasing abdominal pain, distention and diarrhea.

18) Patients with severe CDI who progress to systemic toxicity should undergo early surgical consultation and evaluated for potential surgical intervention (Recommendation 1 C).

Patients with severe CDI who progress to systemic toxicity are likely to have serious comorbidities. Delaying surgery in this group leads to increased likelihood of adverse outcomes [178], although some reports show that a short period of medical optimization can improve outcomes before colectomy [179].

There are no reliable clinical and/or laboratory findings that can predict those patients who will respond to medical therapy and those who will subsequently need surgery [180].

Data comparing mortality rates between surgical and medical treatment for fulminant C. difficile colitis were published in a recent systematic review by Stewart et al. [181]. Five hundred and ten patients with FC were identified in six studies. Emergency colectomy for patients with FC provided a survival advantage compared with continuing antibiotics. When all six studies numbering 510 patients were analysed, the pooled adjusted odds ratio of mortality comparing surgery with medical therapy, and weighted by the contribution of each study, was 0.70 (0.49–0.99) leading the authors to conclude that emergency colectomy has a therapeutic role in treating complicated C. difficile colitis.

Patients presenting with organ failure (acute renal failure, mental status changes, or cardiopulmonary compromise) also need prompt intervention.

The timing of surgical intervention is the key for survival of patients with FC [182–185].

Seder et al. [186] described 6,841 patients with CDI and showed a decreased mortality associated with surgery performed before the need for vasopressor requirement, especially in the patients <65 years old. Hall et al. [184] reviewed 3,237 consecutive cases of CDI and showed an increased mortality rate when surgical exploration was performed after intubation or the development of respiratory failure and the use of vasopressors.

Recently a risk scoring system (RSS) for daily clinical practice was designed by van der Wilden et al. [187]. Age greater than 70 years was assigned 2 points, white blood cell count equal to or greater than 20,000 x 109/L or equal to or less than 2,000 x 109/L was assigned 1 point, cardiorespiratory failure was assigned 7 points, and diffuse abdominal tenderness on physical examination was assigned 6 points. A value of 6 points was determined to be the threshold for reliably dividing low-risk (<6) from high-risk (≥6) patients. Only patients with cardiorespiratory failure or diffuse abdominal tenderness were high risk.

Ferrada et al. [188] reviewed the existing literature on the treatment of CDI and published practice management guidelines (PMG) for the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). The authors strongly recommended, that adult patients with CDI undergo early surgery before developing shock and the need for vasopressors. Although timing remains controversial Ferrada et al. found that it was between 3 days and 5 days after diagnosis in patients who are worsening or not clinically improving [188].

Many factors have been described as predictors of mortality in patients who undergo emergency intervention.

Sailhamer et al. [189] reviewed the records of 4796 inpatients diagnosed with C difficile colitis. In 199 patients (4.1 %) with fulminant C difficile colitis the in-hospital mortality rate was 34.7 %. Independent predictors of mortality included age 70 years or older, severe leukocytosis or leukopenia (white blood cell count, >or = 35 000 × 109/L or <4000 × 109/L) or bandemia (neutrophil bands, >or = 10 %), and cardiorespiratory failure (intubation or vasopressors). Survival rates were higher in patients who were cared for by surgical vs nonsurgical departments.

The ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2010 was used by Lee et al. to study emergency open colectomies performed for C difficile colitis in the USA [190]. The overall mortality was 33 % (111/335). Age 80 years or older, preoperative dialysis dependence, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and wound class III were associated high patient mortality. Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 150 × 103/mm3), coagulopathy (International Normalized Ratio > 2.0), and renal insufficiency (blood urea nitrogen > 40 mg/dL) were also associated with a higher mortality.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following emergency surgery for C. difficile colitis was published by Banghu et al. [191]. Thirty-one studies were included, which presented data for 1433 patients undergoing emergency surgery for C. difficile colitis. It concluded that the strongest predictors for postoperative death were those relating to preoperative physiological status: preoperative intubation, acute renal failure, multiple organ failure and shock requiring vasopressors.

19) Resection of the entire colon should be considered to treat patients with fulminant colitis (FC) (Recommendation 1 B).

20) Diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage may be a useful alternative to resection of entire colon (Recommendation 2 C).

21) Patients with FC should be treated with high dose oral or by enema vancomycin (500 mg, 6 hourly) in combination with intravenous metronidazole (500 mg, 8 hourly). (Recommendation 1 C).

In the Bhangu et al. meta-analysis [191] the most commonly performed operation for treatment of FC was total colectomy with end ileostomy (89 %, 1247/1401). When total colectomy with end ileostomy was not performed, reoperation to resect further bowel was needed in 15.9 % (20/ 126). In the recent meta-analysis by Ferrada et al. [188], 17 studies comparing colectomy versus other procedures or no surgery as treatment for CDI were analyzed. The authors recommended that total colectomy (vs. partial colectomy or other surgery) is the procedure of choice for patients with C. difficile colitis.

To evaluate the role of emergency colectomy in patients with FC, and to identify subgroups of patients that may benefit Lemontagne et al. [192] published a retrospective observational cohort study of 165 cases of FC that required ICU admission or prolongation of ICU stay in 2 tertiary care hospitals of Quebec, Canada. Eighty-seven (53 %) cases died within 30 days of ICU admission, of which almost half (38 of 87, 44 %) died within 48 h of ICU admission. The independent predictors of 30-day mortality were leukocytosis > or = 50 × 10(9)/L, lactate > or = 5 mmol/L, age > or = 75 years, immunosuppression and shock requiring vasopressors. Patients who underwent an emergency colectomy were less likely to die than those treated medically. Colectomy was more beneficial in patients aged 65 years or more, in immunocompetent patients and in patients with a leukocytosis > or = 20 × 109/L or lactate between 2.2 and 4.9 mmol/L.

Diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade colonic lavage may be a colon preserving alternative to total colectomy [193, 194]. To evaluate whether a minimally invasive, colon-preserving approach may be an alternative to sub-total colectomy in the treatment of FC, a historical control group study was performed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center or and the Veterans’ Administration Healthcare System, Pittsburgh between June 2009 and January 2011 [193]. All patients with FC were managed by a loop ileostomy, intraoperative colonic lavage with warmed polyethylene glycol 3350/electrolyte solution via the ileostomy and postoperative antegrade instillation of vancomycin flushes via the ileostomy. Forty-two patients were treated during this time period. There was no significant difference in age, sex, pharmacologic immunosuppression, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II scores between the studied cohort and historical controls. The operation was accomplished laparoscopically in 35 patients (83 %). This treatment strategy resulted in reduced mortality compared to their historical population. Preservation of the colon was achieved in 39 of 42 patients (93 %). Of note, in this study vancomycin antegrade enemas were continued via the ileostomy every 6 h for 10 days after ileostomy formation and this likely augmented the effect of the defuctioning surgery.

Supportive care

22) Supportive measures, including intravenous fluid resuscitation and electrolyte replacement, should be provided to all patients with severe C. difficile infection (Recommendation 1 C).

Diarrhea results in significant volume depletion and electrolyte abnormalities, and fluid and electrolyte imbalance should be promptly corrected [119, 120].

23) Early detection of shock and aggressive management of underlying organ dysfunction are essential for optimum outcomes in patients with fulminant colitis (Recommendation 1 C).

Early detection and prompt aggressive treatment of the underlying organ dysfunction is an essential component of improving outcome of critical ill patients [120].

Severe CDI may present with a fulminant course and may be associated with great morbidity and high mortality. Physiologic support including close invasive monitoring in an intensive care unit setting and aggressive resuscitation are often necessary in fulminant colitis.

Recurrent C. difficile infection (RCDI)

Recurrence is diagnosed when CDI recurs <8 weeks after the onset of a previous episode, provided the symptoms from the previous episode resolved after completion of initial treatment and other causes have been excluded. Symptomatic recurrent C difficile infection (RCDI) occurs in approximately 20 % of patients and is challenging to treat [195]. Patients with recurrence of CDI should therefore be treated by clinicians who have experience in treating the infection.

24) Agents that may be used to treat the first recurrence of CDI include metronidazole, for non-severe RCDI, and vancomycin for severe RCDI. (Recommendation 1 B).

25) Fidaxomicin may be used as an alternative agent (Recommendation 1 B).

A systematic review on the treatment of RCDI was recently published [196]. Metronidazole and vancomycin have a good evidence base for use in RCDI but heterogeneity in treatment duration and treatment doses between the studies precluded robust conclusions. Fidaxomicin may also have a role in the treatment of first recurrence. Fidaxomicine was superior to vancomycin in terms of recurrences, with significantly less recurrence at 28 days. This was confirmed in some subgroup analysis [197].

26) In subsequent recurrence of CDI (2nd or later) oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin is recommended (Recommendation 1 B).

Vancomycin and fidaxomicin are equally effective in resolving CDI symptoms but fidaxomicin has been shown to be associated with a lower likelihood of CDI recurrence after a first recurrence [164, 165, 197]. However, there are no prospective randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of fidaxomicin in patients with multiple recurrences of CDI. Vancomycin is often administered using a prolonged tapered and/or pulsed regimen which may be more effective than a standard 10 to 14 day course although no RCTs have been reported [198].

Probiotics

27) Probiotics may be considered as an adjunctive treatment to antibiotics for immunocompetent patients with RCDI (Recommendation 2 B).

Little evidence exists to support the use of probiotics in the first episode of CDI [116]. Two randomized controlled trials showed some effectiveness for Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 in recurrent CDI. The first demonstrated a lower relapse rate compared with a placebo control group (35 vs 65 % in the placebo group) [199] and the second found that the combination of S. boulardii (1 g/d) with high dose vancomycin (2 g/d) was more effective than high dose vancomycin and placebo (17 vs 50 % recurrence rate) [200]. Other studies with Lactobacillus strains (L. rhamnosus GG or L. plantarum 299v) were stopped prematurely due to enrollment problems [201]. Probiotics should not be administered to patients at risk of bacteraemia or fungaemia [116].

There is limited evidence to support the use of probiotics for the primary prevention of CDI from developing. A meta-analysis of 11 studies was in published 2012 [202]. Two studies showed significantly lower rates of CDI among the probiotic recipients. A meta-analysis of three studies that used the probiotic combination Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R and a combined analysis of those studies with four studies that used Saccharomyces boulardii, showed lower CDI rates in recipients of probiotics compared with recipients of placebo (risk ratio = 0.39; 95 % confidence interval 0.19–0.79. However, given the potential risk of bloodstream infection with these organisms further studies are warrented before their use can be recommended routinely.

Faecal microbiota transplantation

28) Intestinal or faecal microbiota transplantation (IMT or FMT) may be an effective option for the treatment of RCDI (Recommendation 1 B).

Intestinal or faecal microbiota transplantation (IMT or FMT) has been considered as an alternative therapy to treat RCDI [203–208]. It involves infusing intestinal microorganisms (in a suspension of healthy donor stool) into the intestine of patients to restore the intestinal microbiota.

The rationale of FMT is that disruption of the normal balance of colonic flora allows C. difficile strains to grow and produce CDI. By reintroducing normal flora via donor faeces, the imbalance may be corrected, and normal bowel function re-established [203].

FMT has not been widely adopted as a therapeutic tool probably due to concerns regarding safety and acceptability [204].

A systematic literature review of IMT treatment for RCDI and pseudomembranous colitis was published in 2011 by Gough et al. [205]. In 317 patients treated across 27 case series and reports, IMT was highly effective, showing disease resolution in 92 % of cases. In those studies, 35 % of patients received IMT via enema, with a response rate of 95; 23 % patients received IMT via naso-jejunal tube by gastroscope, with a response rate of 76; and 19 % via colonoscopy, with a response rate of 89 %. Effectiveness varied by route of instillation, relationship to stool donor, volume of IMT given, and treatment before infusion.

Recently a systematic review was published by Cammarota et al. [206]. Twenty full-text case series, 15 case reports, and 1 randomized controlled study were included for the final analysis. Almost all patients treated with donors’ fecal infusion experienced recurrent episodes of CD-associated diarrhea despite standard antibiotic treatment. Of a total of 536 patients treated, 467 (87 %) experienced resolution of diarrhea. Diarrhea resolution rates varied according to the site of infusion: 81 % in the stomach; 86 % in the duodenum/jejunum; 93 % in the cecum/ascending colon; and 84 % in the distal colon. No severe adverse events were reported with the procedure.

In a recently published randomized clinical trial by van Nood et al. [208] patients with RCDI were randomised to three groups; 1) vancomycin regime only; 2) vancomycin with duodenal infused FMT and 3) vancomycin and bowel lavage. In the FMT treated group an 81% reduction in diarrhoea was observed. The FMT group were observed to have normalization of their intestinal bacterial composition which was similar to that of the donor. Although, this trial has shown exciting results, these need to be interpreted with caution as the trial included only small number of patients, was not blinded, and was aborted early due to profound differences in the groups. It has also been criticised for potentially having several potential biases.

FMT may be administered via enemas or as a slurry given via a nasogastric tube. In the fall of 2014, Youngster et al. [209] reported their experience on utilizing frozen FMT capsules in 20 patients who had RCDI. Fourteen patients (70 %) had resolution of diarrhea after the first treatment, and an additional 4 patients responded after a second treatment, for a clinical resolution rate of 90 %.

29) FMT may be effective in immunocompromised patients and patients who have had solid organ transplants (Recommendation 2 B).

Patients who are immunocompromised are at increased risk of CDI. During the last two years the first data on FMT in immunocompromised patients began to appear in the medical literature [210].

A multicenter retrospective series on the use of FMT in immunocompromised (IC) patients with CDI that was recurrent, refractory, or severe was published in 2014 [211]. Reasons for IC included: HIV/AIDS (3), solid organ transplant (19), oncologic condition (7), immunosuppressive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; 36), and other medical conditions/medications (15).

This series demonstrated the effective use of FMT for CDI in IC patients with few serious adverse events or related adverse events.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG)

30) IVIG should only be used as adjunct therapy in patients with multiple recurrent or fulminant CDI until results from large, randomized controlled trials are available (Recommendation 2 C).

IVIG treatment has been proposed based on the evidence that the level of immune response to C. difficile colonization is a major determinant of magnitude and duration of clinical manifestations. Passive immunization with IVIG has been reported to be successful in several small series. A review by Abourgergi [212] of fifteen small, mostly retrospective and non-randomized studies documented success with IVIG in the treatment of protracted, recurrent, or severe CDI. The authors concluded IVIG should only be used as adjunct therapy until results from large, randomized controlled trials are available.

Monoclonal antibodies

31) Infusion with monoclonal antibodies may be of use to prevent recurrences of CDI, particularly in patients with CDI due to the 027 epidemic strain (Recommendation 2 C).

In a phase II clinical trial [213], the use of monoclonal antibodies to toxins A and B as an adjunct to antibiotics was shown to decrease recurrence rates in patients with CDI compared with placebo (7 vs. 25 % respectively; 95 % confidence interval, 7 to 29; P < 0.001). The recurrence rates among patients with the epidemic BI/NAP1/027 strain were 8 % for the antibody group compared with 32 % for placebo (P = 0.06); among patients with more than one previous episode of CDI, recurrence rates were 7 and 38 %, respectively (P = 0.006). The authors concluded that the addition of monoclonal antibodies against C. difficile toxins to antibiotic agents significantly reduced the recurrence of C. difficile infection. The findings of this study require confirmation before firm recommendations can be made.

Enteral nutrition in CDI

32) Tube feeding patients should be clinically assessed due to their risk for developing CDI (Recommendation 2 C).

It is widely accepted that enteral nutrition (EN) maintains gut mucosal integrity which leads to decreased intestinal permeability, decreased infections, and an improved immunological status. EN during episodes of diarrhea may be well tolerated and may improve enterocyte healing and maintenance of enzyme activity [214, 215]. EN, however, has also been associated with increased risk of CDI [216]. Bliss, et al. evaluated 76 tube-fed and non tube-fed hospital patients for the development of CDI [217]. Patients were controlled for age, severity of illness and duration of hospitalization. Patients who were tube-fed were statistically more likely to develop C difficile associated diarrhea (20 versus 8 % p = 0.03). One of the reasons may be prolonged use of elemental diets. It is known that critically ill patients tolerate feeding well if the feed is given in elemental form and delivered beyond the stomach into the jejunum because it is totally absorbed within the upper small intestine [218]. Elemental diets are completely absorbed within the small intestine and therefore deprive the colonic microbiota of their source of nutrition, such as dietary fiber, fructose oligosaccharides, and resistant starch [219]. The resultant suppression of colonic fermentation may therefore lead to the disruption of the normal gut flora and the creation of a “permissive” environment for C. difficile colonization and subsequent infection. In feeding tube patients the conversion of elemental diet feeding to a diet containing adequate indigestible carbohydrate after the first week of critical illness may, in theory, be useful.

Recently, Puri et al. [220] reported that daily concomitant treatment with 4 g cholestyramine in patients receiving long-term intravenous ceftriaxone (2 to 4 g ceftriaxone daily, for an average of >10 weeks) was associated with CDI in only three out of 46 patients (6.5 %) compared with 23.1 % of those receiving ceftriaxone alone [221]. Cholestyramine (or colestyramine) is a hydrophilic, water insoluble, non-digestible basic anion-exchange resin which can bind luminal TcdA and TcdB.

Studies have also investigated the possible value of exogenous Phosphatidylcholene (PC) administration for reinforcement of the mucus layer [222, 223]. Mucus or “exogenous” mucus in the form of PC may have a synergistic role with secretory IgA as a barrier against C. difficile toxin A though additional studies are needed to demonstrate its clinical benefit before recommendations can be made [222, 223].

Anti-motility agents

33) The use of anti-peristaltic agents for the treatment of CDI should be discouraged. If anti-peristaltic, if used in isolation agents, are used to control persistent symptoms in patients with CDI they must always be accompanied by medical therapy (Recommendation 2 C).

A review of the literature regarding anti-motility treatment of CDI found 55 patients with CDI who were exposed to anti-motility agents [224].

Nine patients (16 %) died, and 27 patients (49 %) had unknown outcomes. Seventeen patients (31 %) with CDI developed colonic dilation; 5 of these patients with severe CDI died. However, all patients who experienced complications or died were given anti-motility agents alone initially, without an appropriate antibiotic and 23 patients who received metronidazole or vancomycin co-administered with the anti-motility agent experienced no complications. Further study of the role of anti-motility agents in providing symptomatic relief and reducing environmental contamination with infectious stool may be warranted though, until there is clear evidence of benefit, their use in patients with CDI should be avoided [116].

Prevention

34) Proper antimicrobial stewardship in selecting an appropriate antibiotic and optimizing its dose and duration to cure an infection may prevent the emergence of C. difficile (Recommendation 1 B).

Despite vigorous infection control measures until recently, CDI was causing an increasing problem in healthcare facilities worldwide. As CDI is thought to follow disruption to the normal bacterial flora of the colon occurring as a consequence of antibiotic use [225], it is logical that antibiotic stewardship programs may be useful in preventing CDI [226]. Good antimicrobial stewardship involves ensuring appropriate antibiotic choice and optimizing antibiotic dose and duration to cure an infection while minimizing toxicity and conditions conducive to CDI. Recently, a systematic review [227] of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients suggested that reducing excessive antibiotic prescribing can prevent hospital-acquired infections and that interventions to increase effective prescribing improve clinical outcome. It would appear that cephalosporin and quinolone antibiotics may be particularly high risk, in this context [116, 228].

35) Patients with suspected or proven CDI should be placed in contact (enteric) precautions (Recommendation 1 B).

Prompt identification of patients with symptomatic CDI is essential so that appropriate isolation precautions can be put into effect.

This is particularly important in reducing environmental contamination as spores can survive for months in the environment [229], despite regular use of environmental cleaning agents.

Contact (enteric) precautions patients with CDI should be maintained until the resolution of diarrhea, which is demonstrated by passage of formed stool for at least 48 h. Patients with known or suspected CDI should ideally be placed in a private room [116, 230] with en-suite hand washing and toilet facilities. If a private room is not available known CDI patients may be cohort nursed in the same area [231] though the theoretical risk of transfection with different strains exists.

This is supported by a retrospective cohort of 2859 patients by Chang et al. [232]. Patients who were roommates or neighbors of a patient with CDI were at risk of nosocomial acquisition of CDI (RR, 3.94; 95 % CI, 1.27–12.24).

36) Hand hygiene with soap and water is a cornerstone of the prevention of C. difficile . Hand hygiene, contact precautions and good cleaning and disinfection of the environment and patient care equipment, should be used by all health-care workers contacting any patient with known or suspected CDI (Recommendation 1 B).

Hand hygiene with soap and water and the use of contact precautions along with good cleaning and disinfection of the environment and patient equipment, should be used by all health-care workers contacting any patient with known or suspected CDI. Hand hygiene is a cornerstone of prevention of nosocomial infections, including C. difficile. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are highly effective against non–spore-forming organisms, but they may not kill C. difficile spores or remove C. difficile from the hands [233, 234].

The most effective way to remove them from hands is through hand washing with soap and water.

For environmental cleaning, hypochlorite disinfection such as sodium hypochlorite solutions are suggested for regular use in patient areas where C. difficile transmission is ongoing [231].

Though disposable glove use during care of a patient with CDI may be effective in preventing the transmission of C. difficile [230], these must be removed at the point of use and hands thoroughly decontaminated afterwards through soap and water hand washing.

Abbreviations

CDI:

C. difficile infection

RCDI:

Recurrent C. difficile infection

FC:

Fulminant colitis

References

  1. 1.

    Clements AC, Magalhães RJ, Tatem AJ, Paterson DL, Riley TV. Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 027: assessing the risks of further worldwide spread. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:395–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lessa FC, Gould CV, McDonald LC. Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Goudarzi M, Seyedjavadi SS, Goudarzi H, Mehdizadeh Aghdam E, Nazeri S. Clostridium difficile Infection: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, and Therapeutic Options. Scientifica. 2014;2014:916826.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    To KB, Napolitano LM. Clostridium difficile infection: update on diagnosis, epidemiology, and treatment strategies. Surg Infect. 2014;15:490–502.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Eckmann C, Wasserman M, Latif F, Roberts G, Beriot-Mathiot A. Increased hospital length of stay attributable to Clostridium difficile infection in patients with four co-morbidities: an analysis of hospital episode statistics in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(5):835–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Surawicz CM, Brandt LJ, Binion DG, Ananthakrishnan AN, Curry SR, Gilligan PH, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(4):478–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Debast SB, Bauer MP, Kuijper EJ. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20 Suppl 2:1–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Zerey M, Paton BL, Lincourt AE, Gersin KS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The burden of Clostridium difficile in surgical patients in the United States. Surg Infect. 2007;8:557–66.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Halabi WJ, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills S. Clostridium difficile colitis in the United States: a decade of trends, outcomes, risk factors for colectomy, and mortality after colectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:802–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Herzog, T, Deleites C, Belyaev O, Chromik AM, Uhl W. Clostridium difficile in visceral surgery, Chirurg. 2014; Nov 30. [Epub ahead of print].

  11. 11.

    Abdelsattar ZM, Krapohl G, Alrahmani L, Banerjee M, Krell RW, Wong SL, et al. Postoperative Burden of Hospital-Acquired Clostridium difficile Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(1):40–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo-Harris D, Hylek EM, Phillips B, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: Report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force. Chest. 2006;129:174–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, Lang DM, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy. 2009;64:1109–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Viscidi R, Willey S, Bartlett JG. Isolation rates and toxigenic potential of Clostridium difficile isolates from various patient populations. Gastroenterology. 1981;81:5–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Samore MH, DeGirolami PC, Tlucko A, Lichtenberg DA, Melvin ZA, Karchmer AW. Clostridium difficile colonization and diarrhea at a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;18:181–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Walker KJ, Gilliland SS, Vance-Bryan K, Moody JA, Larsson AJ, Rotschafer JC, et al. Clostridium difficile colonization in residents of long-term care facilities: prevalence and risk factors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:940–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cheng AC, Ferguson JK, Richards MJ, Robson JM, Gilbert GL, McGregor A, et al. Australasian Society for Infections Diseases. Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Med J Aust. 2011;194:353–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    McFarland LV, Mulligan ME, Kwok RY, Stamm WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium Difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:204–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Shaughnessy MK, Micielli RL, Depestel DD, Arndt J, Strachan CL, Welch KB, et al. Evaluation of hospital room assignment and acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:201–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Pruitt RN, Lacy DB. Toward a structural understanding of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2012;2:28.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Jank T, Giesemann T, Aktories K. Rho-glucosylating Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B: new insights into structure and function. Glycobiology. 2007;17:15R–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kuehne SA, Cartman ST, Heap JT, Kelly ML, Cockayne A, Minton NP. The role of toxin A and toxin B in Clostridium difficile infection. Nature. 2010;467:711–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Carter GP, Rood JI, Lyras D. The role of toxin A and toxin B in the virulence of Clostridium difficile. Trends Microbiol. 2012;20:21–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kuehne SA, Collery MM, Kelly ML, Cartman ST, Cockayne A, Minton NP. Importance of toxin A, toxin B, and CDT in virulence of an epidemic Clostridium difficile strain. J Infect Dis. 2014;209(1):83–6.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Warny M, Pepin J, Fang A, Killgore G, Thompson A, Brazier J, et al. Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium difficile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. Lancet. 2005;366(9491):1079–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Eckert C, Coignard B, Hebert M, Tarnaud C, Tessier C, Lemire A, et al. ICD-Raisin Working Group. Clinical and microbiological features of Clostridium difficile infections in France: the ICD-RAISIN 2009 national survey. Med Mal Infect. 2013;43:67–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Barbut F, Mastrantonio P, Delmée M, Brazier J, Kuijper E, Poxton I. European Study Group on Clostridium difficile (ESGCD). Prospective study of Clostridium difficile infections in Europe with phenotypic and genotypic characterisation of the isolates. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13:1048–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bauer MP, Notermans DW, van Benthem BH, Brazier JS, Wilcox MH, Rupnik M, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a hospital-based survey. Lancet. 2011;377:63–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    De Rosa FG, Cavallerio P, Corcione S, Parlato C, Fossati L, Serra R, et al. Molecular Characterization of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in a Northern Italian Hospital. Curr Microbiol. 2015;70(2):154–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Geric B, Johnson S, Gerding DN, Grabnar M, Rupnik M. Frequency of binary toxin genes among Clostridium difficile strains that do not produce large clostridial toxins. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5227–32.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Barth H. Uptake of binary actin ADP-ribosylating toxins. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. 2004;152:165–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bacci S, Mølbak K, Kjeldsen MK, Olsen KE. Binary toxin and death after clostridium difficile infection. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:976–82.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sundriyal A, Roberts AK, Ling R, McGlashan J, Shone CC, Acharya KR. Expression, purification and cell cytotoxicity of actin-modifying binary toxin from Clostridium difficile. Protein Expr Purif. 2010;74:42–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Huber CA, Foster NF, Riley TV, Paterson DL. Challenges for standardization of Clostridium difficile typing methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:2810–4.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Clements AC, Magalhaes RJ, Tatem AJ, Paterson DL, Riley TV. C. difficile PCR ribotype 027: assessing the risks of further worldwide spread. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:395–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bartlett JG, Gerding DN. Clinical recognition and diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:12–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lawrence J. Contemporary management of Clostridium difficile associated-disease. Gastroenterol Endosc News Speed. 2007;5:35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Loo VG, Bourgault AM, Poirier L, Lamothe F, Michaud S, Turgeon N, et al. Host and pathogen factors for Clostridium difficile infection and colonization. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(18):1693–703.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    McFarland LV. Renewed interest in a difficult disease: Clostridium difficile infections--epidemiology and current treatment strategies. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2009;25:24–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Vecchio AL, Zacur GM. Clostridium difficile infection: an update on epidemiology, risk factors, and therapeutic options. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012;28:1–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Furuya-Kanamori L, Stone JC, Clark J, McKenzie SJ, Yakob L, Paterson DL, et al. Comorbidities, Exposure to Medications, and the Risk of Community-Acquired Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(2):132–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Garey KW, Jiang ZD, Ghantoji S, Tam VH, Arora V, Dupont HL. A common polymorphism in the interleukin-8 gene promoter is associated with an increased risk for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(12):1406–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Sanders NL, Bollinger RR, Lee R, Thomas S, Parker W. Appendectomy and Clostridium difficile colitis: relationships revealed by clinical observations and immunology. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5607–14.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Seretis C, Seretis F, Goonetilleke K. Appendicectomy and clostridium difficile infection: is there a link? J Clin Med Res. 2014;6(4):239–41.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Clanton J, Subichin M, Drolshagen K, Daley T, Firstenberg MS. Fulminant Clostridium difficile infection: An association with prior appendectomy? World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;5(8):233–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Yong FA, Alvarado AM, Wang H, Tsai J, Estes NC. Appendectomy: a risk factor for colectomy in patients with Clostridium difficile. Am J Surg. 2014;17.

  47. 47.

    Khanna S, Baddour LM, Dibaise JK, Pardi DS. Appendectomy is not associated with adverse outcomes in clostridium difficile infection: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(4):626–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Huang H, Wu S, Chen R, Xu S, Fang H, Weintraub A, et al. Risk factors of Clostridium difficile infections among patients in a university hospital in Shanghai, China. Anaerobe. 2014;30:65–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Walker AS, Eyre DW, Wyllie DH, Dingle KE, Harding RM, O’Connor L, et al. Characterisation of Clostridium difficile hospital ward-based transmission using extensive epidemiological data and molecular typing. PLoS Med. 2012;9(2), e1001172.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Theriot CM, Young VB. Microbial and metabolic interactions between the gastrointestinal tract and Clostridium difficile infection. Gut Microbes. 2014;5(1):86–95.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Kamada N, Seo SU, Chen GY, Nunez G. Role of the gut microbiota in immunity and inflammatory disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(5):321–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Pérez-Cobas AE, Artacho A, Ott SJ, Moya A, Gosalbes MJ, Latorre A. Structural and functional changes in the gut microbiota associated to Clostridium difficile infection. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:335.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Kamada N, Chen GY, Inohara N, Núñez G. Control of pathogens and pathobionts by the gut microbiota. Nat Immunol. 2013;14(7):685–90.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hensgens MP, Goorhuis A, Dekkers OM, Kuijper EJ. Time interval of increased risk for Clostridium difficile infection after exposure to antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:742–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kazakova SV, Ware K, Baughman B, Bilukha O, Paradis A, Sears S, et al. A hospital outbreak of diarrhea due to an emerging epidemic strain of Clostridium difficile. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2518–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Muto CA, Pokrywka M, Shutt K, Mendelshon AB, Nouri K, Posey K, et al. A large outbreak of Clostridium difficile–associated disease with an unexpected proportion of deaths and colectomies at a teaching hospital following increased fluoroquinolone use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:273–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Loo VG, Poirier L, Miller MA, Oughton M, Libman MB, Michaud S, et al. A predominately clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2442–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Pépin J, Saheb N, Coulombe MA, Alary ME, Corriveau MP, Authier S, et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolones as the predominant risk factor for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a cohort study during an epidemic in Quebec. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1254–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Dubberke ER, Reske KA, Yan Y, Olsen MA, McDonald LC, Fraser VJ. Clostridium difficile-associated disease in a setting of endemicity: identification of novel risk factors. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:1543–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Owens RC, Donskey CJ, Gaynes RP, Loo VG, Muto CA. Antimicrobial-associated risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    McCusker ME, Harris AD, Perencevich E, Roghmann M. Fluoroquinolone use and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:730–3.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Gerding DN, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Teasley LR, Gebhard RL, Schwartz ML, et al. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis in adults. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:95–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Brown E, Talbot GH, Axelrod P, Provencher M, Hoegg C. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile toxin-associated diarrhea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:283–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Iv EC, Iii EC, Johnson DA. Clinical update for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2014;5:1–26.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Privitera G, Scarpellini P, Ortisi G, Nicastro G, Nicolin R, De Lalla F. Prospective study of Clostridium difficile intestinal colonization and disease following single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:208–10.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Yee J, Dixon CM, McLean AP, Meakins JL. Clostridium difficile disease in a department of surgery. The significance of prophylactic antibiotics. Arch Surg. 1991;126:241–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Cunningham R, Dale B, Undy B, Gaunt N. Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54:243–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Dial S, Alrasadi K, Manoukian C, Huang A, Menzies D. Risk of Clostridium difficile diarrhea among hospital inpatients prescribed proton pump inhibitors: cohort and case–control studies. CMAJ. 2004;171:33–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, Singh S, Cavallazzi R, Loke YK. Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1011–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Shah S, Lewis A, Leopold D, Dunstan F, Woodhouse K. Gastric acid suppression does not promote clostridial diarrhoea in the elderly. QJM. 2000;93:175–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Kent KC, Rubin MS, Wroblewski L, Hanff PA, Silen W. The impact of Clostridium difficile on a surgical service: a prospective study of 374 patients. Ann Surg. 1998;227:296–301.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    McDonald LC, Killgore GE, Thompson A, Owens Jr RC, Kazakova SV, Sambol SP, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Eng Jour Med. 2005;353:2433–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Rodrigues MA, Brady RR, Rodrigues J, Graham C, Gibb AP. Clostridium difficile infection in general surgery patients; identification of high-risk populations. Int J Surg. 2010;8:368–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Kim MJ, Kim BS, Kwon JW, Ahn SE, Lee SS, Park HC, et al. Risk factors for the development of Clostridium difficile colitis in a surgical ward. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012;83:14–20.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Hashimoto H, Matsuda S, Fushimi K. The burden of Clostridium difficile-associated disease following digestive tract surgery in Japan. J Hosp Infect. 2012;82:175–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Wren SM, Ahmed N, Jamal A, Safadi BY. Preoperative oral antibiotics in colorectal surgery increase the rate of Clostridium difficile colitis. Arch Surg. 2005;140:752–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Yeom CH, Cho MM, Baek SK, Bae OS. Risk Factors for the Development of Clostridium difficile-associated Colitis after Colorectal Cancer Surgery. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26:329–33.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Damle RN, Cherng NB, Flahive JM, Davids JS, Maykel JA, Sturrock PR, et al. Clostridium difficile infection after colorectal surgery: a rare but costly complication. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1804–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Lumpkins K, Bochicchio GV, Joshi M, Gens R, Bochicchio K, Conway A, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in critically injured trauma patients. Surg Infect. 2008;9:497–501.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Egorova NN, Siracuse JJ, McKinsey JF, Nowygrod R. Trend, risk factors and costs of Clostridium Difficile infections in vascular surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;S0890-5096(15):00015–1.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Navaneethan U, Mukewar S, Venkatesh PG, Lopez R, Shen B, Nitzan O, et al. Clostridium difficile infection is associated with worse long term outcome in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6:330–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Jodorkovsky D, Young Y, Abreu MT. Clinical outcomes of patients with ulcerative colitis and co-existing Clostridium difficile infection. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:415–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Issa M, Vijayapal A, Graham MB, Beaulieu DB, Otterson MF, Lundeen S, et al. Impact of Clostridium difficile on inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:345–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Ananthakrishnan AN, McGinley EL, Binion DG. Excess hospitalisation burden associated with Clostridium difficile in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2008;57:205–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Clayton EM, Rea MC, Shanahan F, Quigley EM, Kiely B, Hill C, et al. The vexed relationship between Clostridium difficile and inflammatory bowel disease: an assessment of carriage in an outpatient setting among patients in remission. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1162–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Schneeweiss S, Korzenik J, Solomon DH, Canning C, Lee J, Bressler B. Infliximab and other immunomodulating drugs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and the risk of serious bacterial infections. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:253–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Kariv R, Navaneethan U, Venkatesh PG, Lopez R, Shen B. Impact of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2011;5:34–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Absah I, Faubion WA. Concomitant therapy with methotrexate and anti-TNF-α in pediatric patients with refractory crohn’s colitis: a case series. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18:1488–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Rodemann JF, Dubberke ER, Reske KA, da Seo H, Stone CD. Incidence of Clostridium difficile infection in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:339–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Tsironi E, Irving PM, Feakins RM, Rampton DS. “Diversion” colitis caused by Clostridium difficile infection: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1074–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Li Y, Qian J, Queener E, Shen B. Risk factors and outcome of PCR-detected Clostridium difficile infection in ileal pouch patients. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:397–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Ben-Horin S, Margalit M, Bossuyt P, Maul J, Shapira Y, Bojic D, et al. Prevalence and clinical impact of endoscopic pseudomembranes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and Clostridium difficile infection. J Crohns Colitis. 2010;4:194–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Yanai H, Nguyen GC, Yun L, Lebwohl O, Navaneethan U, Stone CD, et al. Practice of gastroenterologists in treating flaring inflammatory bowel disease patients with clostridium difficile: antibiotics alone or combined antibiotics/immunomodulators? Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17:1540–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Albright JB, Bonatti H, Mendez J, Kramer D, Stauffer J, Hinder R, et al. Early and late onset Clostridium difficile-associated colitis following liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2007;20(10):856–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Chopra T, Alangaden GJ, Chandrasekar P. Clostridium difficile infection in cancer patients and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010;8(10):1113–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Rodríguez Garzotto A, Mérida García A, Muñoz Unceta N, Galera Lopez MM,Orellana-Miguel MA, Díaz-García CV, et al. Risk factors associated with Clostridium difficile infection in adult oncology patients. Support Care Cancer. 2014 Nov 20. [Epub ahead of print]

  97. 97.

    Haines CF, Moore RD, Bartlett JG, Sears CL, Cosgrove SE, Carroll K, et al. Clostridium difficile in a HIV-infected cohort: incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes. AIDS. 2013;27(17):2799–807.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Collini PJ, Kuijper E, Dockrell DH. Clostridium difficile infection in patients with HIV/AIDS. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2013;10(3):273–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Zhu Y, Wang L, Feng S, Wang S, Zheng C, Wang J, et al. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea among cancer patients. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2014;36(10):773–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Gupta A, Khanna S. Community-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: an increasing public health threat. Infect Drug Resist. 2014;7:63–72.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Khanna S, Pardi DS, Aronson SL, Kammer PP, Baddour LM. Outcomes in community-acquired Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35(5):613–8.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Garey KW, Sethi S, Yadav Y, DuPont HL. Meta-analysis to assess risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect. 2008;70:298–304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Eyre DW, Walker AS, Wyllie D, Dingle KE, Griffiths D, Finney J, et al. Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database. Predictors of first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection:implications for initial management. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Zilberberg MD, Reske K, Olsen M, Yan Y, Dubberke ER. Risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) hospitalization among hospitalized patients with an initial CDI episode: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:306.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, Pant C, Rolston DD, Hernandez AV, et al. Risk Factors for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Jan 28:1–9. [Epub ahead of print]

  106. 106.

    Cornely OA, Miller MA, Louie TJ, Crook DW, Gorbach SL. Treatment of first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: fidaxomicin versus vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:154–61.

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    McFarland LV, Clarridge JE, Beneda HW, Raugi GJ. Fluoroquinolone use and risk factors for Clostridium difficile-associated disease within a Veterans Administration health care system. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:1141–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Jaber MR, Olafsson S, Fung WL, Reeves ME. Clinical review of the management of fulminant clostridium difficile infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(12):3195–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Kazanowski M, Smolarek S, Kinnarney F, Grzebieniak Z. Clostridium difficile: epidemiology, diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities - a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:223–32.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Welfare MR, Lalayiannis LC, Martin KE, Corbett S, Marshall B, Sarma JB. Co-morbidities as predictors of mortality in Clostridium difficile infection and derivation of the ARC predictive score. J Hosp Infect. 2011;79:359–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Hu MY, Katchar K, Kyne L, Maroo S, Tummala S, Dreisbach V, et al. Prospective derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1206–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Voelker R. Increased Clostridium difficile virulence demands new treatment approach. JAMA. 2010;26:2017–9.

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Bauer MP, Hensgens MPM, Miller MA, Gerding DN, Wilcox MH, Dale AP, et al. Renal failure and leukocytosis are predictors of a complicated course of Clostridium difficile infection if measured on day of diagnosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:149–53.

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Abou Chakra CN, Pepin J, Valiquette L. Prediction tools for unfavourable outcomes in Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2012;7, e30258.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Miller MA, Louie T, Mullane K, Weiss K, Lentnek A, Golan Y, et al. Derivation and validation of a simple clinical bedside score (ATLAS) for Clostridium difficile infection which predicts response to therapy. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:148.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Kelly CP, Loo VG, McDonald LC, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:431–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Flegel W, Muller F, Daubener W, Fisher HG, Hadding U, Northoff H. Cytokine response by human monocytes to Clostridium difficile toxin a and toxin B. Infect Immun. 1991;59:3659–66.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Castagliuolo I, Keates AC, Wang CC, Pasha A, Valenick L, Kelly CP, et al. Clostridium difficile toxin a stimulates macrophage- inflammatory protein-2 production in rat intestinal epithelial cells. J Immunol. 1998;160:6039–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Dallal RM, Harbrecht BG, Boujoukas AJ, Sirio CA, Farkas LM, Lee KK, et al. Fulminant Clostridium difficile: an underappreciated and increasing cause of death and complications. Ann Surg. 2002;235:363–72.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Adams SD, Mercer DW. Fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007;13:450–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Malnick SD, Zimhony O. Treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1767–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    McFarland LV, Elmer GW, Surawicz CM. Breaking the cycle: treatment strategies for 163 cases of recurrent Clostridium difficile disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1769–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Eyre DW, Walker AS, Wyllie D, Dingle KE, Griffiths D, Finney J, et al. Predictors of first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: Implications for initial management. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55 Suppl 2:S77–87.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Hu MY, Katchar K, Kyne L, Maroo S, Tummala S, Dreisbach V, et al. Prospective derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for recurrent Clostiridium difficle infection. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1206–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Kelly JP. Can we identify patients at high risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18 Suppl 6:21–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Fekety R, McFarland LV, Surawicz CM, Greenberg RN, Elmer GW, Mulligan ME. Recurrent Clostridium difficile diarrhea: Characteristics of and the risk factors for patients enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24(3):324–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Samie AA, Traub M, Bachmann K, Kopischke K, Theilmann L. Risk factors for recurrence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Hepatogastroenterology. 2013;60(126):1351–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    LaBarbera FD, Nikiforov I, Parvathenani A, Pramil V, Gorrepati S. A prediction model for Clostridium difficile recurrence. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2015;5(1):26033.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Hookman P, Barkin JS. Clostridium difficile associated infection, diarrhea and colitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:1554–80.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Tabak YP, Zilberberg MD, Johannes RS, Sun X, McDonald LC. Attributable burden of hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection: a propensity score matching study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:588–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Campbell R, Dean B, Nathanson B, Haidar T, Strauss M, Thomas S. Length of stay and hospital costs among high-risk patients with hospital-origin Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. J Med Econ. 2013;16:440–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Magalini S, Pepe G, Panunzi S, Spada PL, De Gaetano A, Gui D. An economic evaluation of Clostridium difficile infection management in an Italian hospital environment. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(15):2136–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Skovrlj B, Guzman JZ, Silvestre J, Al Maaieh M, Qureshi SA. Clostridium difficile colitis in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 2014;39:1167–73.

    Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Mittal C, Hassan S, Arshad S, Jeepalyam S, Bruni S, Miceli M, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in liver transplant recipients: a retrospective study of rates, risk factors and outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2014;14:1901–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Lee DY, Chung EL, Guend H, Whelan RL, Wedderburn RV, Rose KM. Predictors of mortality after emergency colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2014;259:148–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Barbut F, Surgers L, Eckert C, Visseaux B, Cuingnet M, Mesquita C, et al. Does a rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection impact on quality of patient management? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):136–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Kundrapu S, Sunkesula VC, Jury LA, Sethi AK, Donskey CJ. Utility of perirectal swab specimens for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(11):1527–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Carroll KC. Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: the next generation. Anaerobe. 2011;17:170–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Kyne L, Warny M, Qamar A, Kelly CP. Asymptomatic carriage of Clostridium difficile and serum levels of IgG antibody against toxin A. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:390–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Planche T, Aghaizu A, Holliman R, Riley P, Poloniecki J, Breathnach A, et al. Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:777–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Brecher SM, Novak-Weekley SM, Nagy E. Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections: there is light at the end of the colon. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:1175–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Lyerly DM, Barroso LA, Wilkins TD. Identification of the latex test-reactive protein of Clostridium difficile as glutamate dehydrogenase. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29:2639–42.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Schmidt ML, Gilligan PH. Clostridium difficile testing algorithms: what is practical and feasible? Anaerobe. 2009;15:270–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Planche TD, Davies KA, Coen PG, Finney JM, Monahan IM, Morris KA, et al. Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:936–45.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Ros PR, Buetow PC, Pantograg-Brown L, Forsmark CE, Sobin LH. Pseudomembranous colitis. Radiology. 1996;198:1–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Merine DS, Fishman EK, Jones B. Pseudomembranous colitis: CT evaluation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1987;2:1017–20.

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Fishman EK, Kavuru M, Jones B, Kuhlman JE, Merine DS, Lillimoe KD, et al. Pseudomembranous colitis: CT evaluation of 26 cases. Radiology. 1991;180:57–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Boland GW, Lee MJ, Cats AM, Gaa JA, Saini S, Mueller PR. Antibiotic-induced diarrhea: specificity of abdominal CT for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile disease. Radiology. 1994;191:103–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Wang MF, Ding Z, Zhao J, Jiang CQ, Liu ZS, Qian Q. Current role of surgery for the treatment of fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126:949–56.

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Kirkpatrick ID, Greenberg HM. Evaluating the CT diagnosis of Clostridium difficile colitis: should CT guide therapy? Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:635–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Abu-Zidan FM. Point-of-care ultrasound in critically ill patients: Where do we stand? J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2012;5:70–1.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    O’Malley ME, Wilson SR. US of gastrointestinal tract abnormalities with CT correlation. Radiographics. 2003;23:59–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Downey DB, Wilson SR. Pseudomembranous colitis: sonographic features. Radiology. 1991;180:61–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Ramachandran I, Sinha R, Rodgers P. Pseudomembranous colitis revisited: spectrum of imaging findings. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:535–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Razzaq R, Sukumar SA. Ultrasound diagnosis of clinically undetected Clostridium difficile toxin colitis. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:446–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Hookman P, Barkin JS. Clostridium difficile associated infection, diarrhea and colitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:1554–158.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Johal SS, Hammond J, Solomon K, James PD, Mahida YR. Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea in hospitalised patients: onset in the community and hospital and role of flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut. 2004;53:673–7.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Kyne L, Merry C, O’Connell B, Kelly A, Keane C, O’Neill D. Factors associated with prolonged symptoms and severe disease due to Clostridium difficile. Age Ageing. 1999;28:107–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Bagdasarian N, Rao K, Malani PN. Diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile in adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313(4):398–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Bartlett JG. The case for vancomycin as the preferred drug for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:1489–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Teasley DG, Gerding DN, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gebhard RL, Schwartz MJ, et al. Prospective randomised trial of metronidazole vs vancomycin for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis. Lancet. 1983;2:1043–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Fekety R, Silva J, Buggy B, Deery HG. Treatment of antibiotic-associated colitis with vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1984;14:97–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Bartlett JG, Tedesco FJ, Shull S, Lowe B, Chang T. Symptomatic relapse after oral vancomycin therapy of antibiotic-associated pseudomembranous colitis. Gastroenterology. 1980;78:431–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Louie TJ, Miller MA, Mullane KM, Weiss K, Lentnek A, Golan Y, et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:422–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Cornely OA, Crook DW, Esposito R, Poirier A, Somero MS, Weiss K, et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:281–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Gerber M, Ackermann G. OPT-80. A macrocyclic antimicrobial agent for the treatment of clostridium difficile infections: a review. Exp Opin Investig Drugs. 2008;17:547–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Nelson RL. Antibiotic treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7(9):CD004610.

    Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Zar FA, Bakkanagari SR, Moorthi KM, Davis MB. A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile -associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:302–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Al-Nassir WN, Sethi AK, Nerandzic MM, Bobulsky GS, Jump RL, Donskey CJ. Comparison of clinical and microbiological response to treatment of Clostridium difficile -associated disease with metronidazole and vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:56–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Johnson S, Louie TJ, Gerding DN, Cornely OA, Chasan-Taber S, Fitts D, et al. Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(3):345–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Kim PK, Huh HC, Cohen HW, Feinberg EJ, Ahmad S, Coyle C, et al. Intracolonic vancomycin for severe Clostridium difficile colitis. Surg Infect. 2013;14:532–9.

    Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Eiland 3rd EH, Sawyer AJ, Massie NL. Fidaxomicin Use and Clinical Outcomes for Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea. Infect Dis Clin Pract (Baltim Md). 2015;23(1):32–5.

    Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Vargo CA, Bauer KA, Mangino JE, Johnston JE, Goff DA. An antimicrobial stewardship program’s real-world experience with fidaxomicin for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a case series. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(9):901–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Herpers BL, Vlaminckx B, Burkhardt O, Blom H, Biemond-Moeniralam HS, Hornef M, et al. Intravenous tigecycline as adjunctive or alternative therapy for severe refractory Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1732–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    El-Herte RI, Baban TA, Kanj SS. Recurrent refractory Clostridium difficile colitis treated successfully with rifaximin and tigecycline: A case report and review of the literature. Scan J Infect Dis. 2012;44:228–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Musher DM, Logan N, Mehendiratta V, Melgarejo NA, Garud S, Hamill RJ. Clostridium difficile colitis that fails conventional metronidazole therapy: response to nitazoxanide. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59(4):705–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Girotra M, Kumar V, Khan JM, Damisse P, Abraham RR, Aggarwal V, et al. Clinical predictors of fulminant colitis in patients with Clostridium difficile infection. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:133–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Khanna S, Pardi DS. Clostridium difficile infection: new insights into management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1106–17.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Clanton J, Fawley R, Haller N, Daley T, Porter J, Paranjape C, et al. Patience is a virtue: an argument for delayed surgical intervention in fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Am Surg. 2014;80(6):614–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Carchman EH, Peitzman AB, Simmons RL, Zuckerbraun BS. The role of acute care surgery in the treatment of severe, complicated Clostridium difficile-associated disease. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73:789–800.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Stewart DB, Hollenbeak CS, Wilson MZ. Is colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis life saving? A systematic review. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:798–804.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    Ali SO, Welch JP, Dring RJ. Early surgical intervention for fulminant pseudomembranous colitis. Am Surg. 2008;74:20–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    Chan S, Kelly M, Helme S, Gossage J, Modarai B, Forshaw M. Outcomes following colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis. Int J Surg. 2009;7:78–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. 184.

    Hall JF, Berger D. Outcome of colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis: a plea for early surgical management. Am J Surg. 2008;196:384–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. 185.

    Osman KA, Ahmed MH, Hamad MA, Mathur D. Emergency colectomy for fulminant Clostri- dium difficile colitis: Striking the right balance. Scan J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:1222–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Seder CW, Villalba Jr MR, Robbins J, Ivascu FA, Carpenter CF, Dietrich M, et al. Early colectomy may be associated with improved survival in fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: An 8-year experience. Am J of Surg. 2009;197:302–7.

    Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    van der Wilden GM, Chang Y, Cropano C, Subramanian M, Schipper IB, Yeh DD, et al. Fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: prospective development of a risk scoring system. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76:424–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. 188.

    Ferrada P, Velopulos CG, Sultan S, Haut ER, Johnson E, Praba-Egge A, et al. Timing and type of surgical treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated disease: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76:1484–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Sailhamer EA, Carson K, Chang Y, Zacharias N, Spaniolas K, Tabbara M, et al. Fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: patterns of care and predictors of mortality. Arch Surg. 2009;144:433–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. 190.

    Lee DY, Chung EL, Guend H, Whelan RL, Wedderburn RV, Rose KM. Predictors of mortality after emergency colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2014;259:148–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. 191.

    Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Gupta A, Torrance A, Singh P, West Midlands Research Collaborative. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following emergency surgery for Clostridium difficile colitis. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1501–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. 192.

    Lamontagne F, Labbé AC, Haeck O, Lesur O, Lalancette M, Patino C, et al. Impact of emergency colectomy on survival of patients with fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis during an epidemic caused by a hypervirulent strain. Ann Surg. 2007;245:267–72.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Neal MD, Alverdy JC, Hall DE, Simmons RL, Zuckerbraun BS. Diverting loop ileostomy and colonic lavage: an alternative to total abdominal colectomy for the treatment of severe, complicated Clostridium difficile associated disease. Ann Surg. 2011;254:423–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. 194.

    Olivas AD, Umanskiy K, Zuckerbraun B, Alverdy JC. Avoiding colectomy during surgical management of fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Surg Infect. 2010;11:299–305.

    Google Scholar 

  195. 195.

    Eyre DW, Walker AS, Wyllie D, Dingle KE, Griffiths D, Finney J, et al. Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database. Predictors of first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection:implications for initial management. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  196. 196.

    O’Horo JC, Jindai K, Kunzer B, Safdar N. Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. Infection. 2014;42:43–59.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. 197.

    Cornely OA, Miller MA, Louie TJ, Crook DW, Gorbach SL. Treatment of first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: fidaxomicin versus vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:154–61.

    Google Scholar 

  198. 198.

    McFarland LV, Elmer GW, Surawicz CM. Breaking the cycle: treatment strategies for 163 cases of recurrent Clostridium difficile disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(7):1769–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. 199.

    McFarland LV, Surawicz CM, Greenberg RN, Fekety R, Elmer GW, Moyer KA, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of Saccharomyces boulardii in combination with standard antibiotics for Clostridium difficile disease. JAMA. 1994;271:1913–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. 200.

    Surawicz CM, McFarland LV, Greenberg RN, Rubin M, Fekety R, Mulligan ME, et al. The search for a better treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile disease: use of high-dose vancomycin combined with Saccharomyces boulardii. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:1012–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. 201.

    McFarland LV. Meta-analysis of probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhea and the treatment of Clostridium difficile disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:812–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. 202.

    Johnson S, Maziade PJ, McFarland LV, Trick W, Donskey C, Currie B, et al. Is primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection possible with specific probiotics? Int J Infect Dis. 2012;16(11):e786–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. 203.

    Bakken JS, Borody T, Brandt LJ, Brill JV, Demarco DC, Franzos MA, et al. Treating Clostridium difficile infection with fecal microbiota transplantation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:1044–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. 204.

    Khanna S, Pardi DS. Clostridium difficile infection: new insights into management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1106–17.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. 205.

    Gough E, Shaikh H, Manges AR. Systematic review of intestinal microbiota transplantation (fecal bacteriotherapy) for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:994–1002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. 206.

    Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Gasbarrini A. Fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48(8):693–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. 207.

    Kassam Z, Lee CH, Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(4):500–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. 208.

    van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdorp M, Fuentes S, Zoetendal EG, de Vos WM, et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:407–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. 209.

    Youngster I, Russell GH, Pindar C, Ziv-Baran T, Sauk J, Hohmann EL. Oral, capsulized, frozen fecal microbiota transplantation for relapsing Clostridium difficile infection. JAMA. 2014;312(17):1772–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. 210.

    Di Bella S, Gouliouris T, Petrosillo N. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Clostridium difficile infection: Focus on immunocompromised patients. J Infect Chemother. 2015;21(4):230–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  211. 211.

    Kelly CR, Ihunnah C, Fischer M, Khoruts A, Surawicz C, Afzali A, et al. Fecal microbiota transplant for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in immunocompromised patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1065–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. 212.

    Abourgergi MS, Kwon JH. Intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a review. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  213. 213.

    Lowy I, Molrine DC, Leav BA, Blair BM, Baxter R, Gerding DN, et al. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies against Clostridium difficile toxins. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:197–205.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  214. 214.

    Sullivan PB. Nutritional management of acute diarrhea. Nutrition. 1998;14:758–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. 215.

    Choi EY, Park DA, Park J. Calorie Intake of Enteral Nutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Acutely Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014 Jul 30. [Epub ahead of print]

  216. 216.

    Gerding DN. Acquisition of Clostridium difficile and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients receiving tube feeding. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:1012–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  217. 217.

    Bliss DZ, Johnson S, Savik K, Clabots CL, Willard K, Gerding DN. Acquisition of C. difficile and C. diff-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients receiving tube feeding. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:1012–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. 218.

    O’Keefe SJ. A guide to enteral access procedures and enteral nutrition. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6:207–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  219. 219.

    O’Keefe SJ. Tube feeding, the microbiota, and Clostridium difficile infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(2):139–42.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. 220.

    Puri BK, Hakkarainen-Smith J, Monro JA. The potential use of cholestyramine to reduce the risk of developing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in patients receiving long-term intravenous ceftriaxone. Med Hypotheses. 2015;84:78–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  221. 221.

    Westh H, Iversen JT, Gyrtrup HJ. Clostridium difficile in faecal flora after perioperative prophylaxis with ampicillin or ceftriaxone. J Infect. 1991;23:347–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. 222.

    Olson A, Diebel LN, Liberati DM. Effect of host defenses on Clostridium difficile toxin-induced intestinal carrier injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74:983–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. 223.

    Diebel LN, Liberati DM. Reinforcement of the intestinal mucus layer protects against Clostridium difficile intestinal injury in vitro. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:460–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. 224.

    Koo HL, Koo DC, Musher DM, DuPont HL. Antimotility agents for the treatment of Clostridium difficile diarrhea and colitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(5):598–605.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  225. 225.

    Piacenti FJ, Leuthner KD. Antimicrobial stewardship and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. J Pharm Pract. 2013;26:506–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  226. 226.

    Feazel LM, Malhotra A, Perencevich EN, Kaboli P, Diekema DJ, Schweizer ML. Effect of antibiotic stewardship programmes on Clostridium difficile incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:1748–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. 227.

    Davey P, Brown E, Charani E, Fenelon L, Gould IM, Holmes A, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4, CD003543.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. 228.

    Marufu O, Desai N, Aldred D, Brown T, Eltringham I. Analysis of interventions to reduce the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection at a London teaching hospital trust, 2003–2011. J Hosp Infect. 2014;89(1):38–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  229. 229.

    Owens RC. Clostridium difficile-associated disease: an emerging threat to patient safety: insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26:299–311.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. 230.

    Garner JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:53–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. 231.

    Vonberg RP, Kuijper EJ, Wilcox MH, Barbut F, Tull P, Gastmeier P, et al. Infection control measures to limit the spread of Clostridium difficile. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008;14:2–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  232. 232.

    Chang VT, Nelson K. The role of physical proximity in nosocomial diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:717–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  233. 233.

    Willt M, Odenhott I, Walder M. Activity of three disinfectants and acidifi ed nitrate against Clostridium difficile spores. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:765–8.

    Google Scholar 

  234. 234.

    Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Brun-Buisson C. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10–5. doi:10.1086/674396. Epub 2013 Nov 26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Macerata Hospital, Via Santa Lucia 2, 62019, Macerata, Italy

    Massimo Sartelli

  2. American Board of Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

    Mark A. Malangoni

  3. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Fikri M. Abu-Zidan

  4. Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK

    Ewen A. Griffiths

  5. 2nd Infectious Diseases Division, National Institute for Infectious Diseases L. Spallanzani, Rome, Italy

    Stefano Di Bella & Nicola Petrosillo

  6. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Washington, USA

    Lynne V. McFarland

  7. Department of Medical Microbiology, King’s College Hospital, London, UK

    Ian Eltringham

  8. Department of Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Vishal G. Shelat

  9. Emergency Surgery, and Surgical Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    George C. Velmahos

  10. Gastroenterology Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Ciarán P. Kelly

  11. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Sahil Khanna

  12. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Zaid M. Abdelsattar

  13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Layan Alrahmani

  14. General Surgery I, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy

    Luca Ansaloni & Federico Coccolini

  15. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Center Zagreb and School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Goran Augustin

  16. Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Unit, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

    Miklosh Bala

  17. UHLIN (Unité d’Hygiène et de Lutte contre les Infections Nosocomiales) National Reference Laboratory for Clostridium difficile Groupe Hospitalier de l’Est Parisien (HUEP), Paris, France

    Frédéric Barbut

  18. Department of General Surgery, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel

    Offir Ben-Ishay & Yoram Kluger

  19. Academic Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK

    Aneel Bhangu

  20. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA

    Walter L. Biffl & Ernest E. Moore

  21. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury MA and BU School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Stephen M. Brecher

  22. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital, Dr.José E. González, Monterrey, Mexico

    Adrián Camacho-Ortiz

  23. Department of Surgery, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Miguel A. Caínzos

  24. Department of Pathology, University of Alberta Edmonton, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Laura A. Canterbury

  25. Emergency Surgery Department, Maggiore Parma Hospital, Parma, Italy

    Fausto Catena

  26. Department of General Surgery, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham Kent, UK

    Shirley Chan

  27. Department of Surgery, Division of Acute Care Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Jill R. Cherry-Bukowiec & Kathleen B. To

  28. Department of Surgery, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Summa Akron City Hospital, Akron, OH, USA

    Jesse Clanton

  29. Faculty of Medicine, Transilvania University, Infectious Diseases Hospital, Brasov, Romania

    Maria Elena Cocuz

  30. Division of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Burns, and Acute Care Surgery, University of California San Diego Health Science, San Diego, USA

    Raul Coimbra

  31. Division of Acute Care Surgery, Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Charles H. Cook

  32. Department of Surgery,Tianjin Nankai Hospital, Nankai Clinical School of Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China

    Yunfeng Cui

  33. Department of Infectious Diseases, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Kraków, Poland

    Jacek Czepiel

  34. Department of General Surgery, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey

    Koray Das

  35. Department of Surgery, Tbilisi State Medical University, Kipshidze Central University Hospital, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Zaza Demetrashvili

  36. Department of Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar

    Isidoro Di Carlo

  37. Trauma Surgery Unit, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy

    Salomone Di Saverio

  38. Clinical Infectious Diseases Hospital, Ovidius University, Constanta, Romania

    Irina Magdalena Dumitru

  39. National Reference Laboratory for Clostridium difficile, AP-HP, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France

    Catherine Eckert

  40. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Klinikum Peine, Hospital of Medical University Hannover, Peine, Germany

    Christian Eckmann

  41. Vital Care, Inc, Meridian, MS, USA

    Edward H. Eiland

  42. Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Mushira Abdulaziz Enani

  43. Department of General Surgery, Trauma and Emergency Surgery Division, ABC Medical School, Santo André, SP, Brazil

    Mario Faro

  44. Division of Trauma, Critical Care and Emergency Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Paula Ferrada & Rao Ivatury

  45. Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Joseph Derek Forrester

  46. Division of Trauma Surgery, Hospital de Clinicas, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Gustavo P. Fraga

  47. Service of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geneva University Hospital, Genève, Switzerland

    Jean Louis Frossard

  48. Critical Care Unit, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de A Coruña (INIBIC), Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), Sergas, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), A Coruña, Spain

    Rita Galeiras

  49. Department of Surgery Mansoura, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Wagih Ghnnam

  50. Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario (HU) Terezinha de Jesus da Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas e da Saude de Juiz de Fora (SUPREMA), Hospital Universitario (HU) Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Brazil

    Carlos Augusto Gomes

  51. Department of Internal Medicine, Pinnacle Health Hospital, Harrisburg, PA, USA

    Venkata Gorrepati & Francis D. LaBarbera

  52. Department of Medicine, Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK

    Mohamed Hassan Ahmed

  53. Department of Surgery, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Torsten Herzog & Waldemar Uhl

  54. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Felicia Humphrey & Arnab Ray

  55. Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Republic of Korea

    Jae Il Kim

  56. General Surgery Department, Erzincan University Mengücek Gazi Training and Research Hospital, Erzincan, Turkey

    Arda Isik

  57. School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia

    Yeong Yeh Lee

  58. Department of Pharmacy Practice, St Louis College of Pharmacy, St Louis, MO, USA

    Paul Juang

  59. Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Luis Furuya-Kanamori

  60. Clinic For Emergency surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, Faculty of Medicine University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Aleksandar Karamarkovic

  61. General and Trauma Surgery, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, North Bronx Healthcare Network, Bronx, NY, USA

    Peter K Kim

  62. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan

    Wen Chien Ko

  63. Division of Critical Care & Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Jae Gil Lee

  64. Abdominal Center, Helsinki University Hospital Meilahti, Helsinki, Finland

    Ari Leppaniemi

  65. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Varut Lohsiriwat

  66. Department of Surgery, Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, India

    Sanjay Marwah

  67. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, USA

    John E. Mazuski

  68. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Gokhan Metan

  69. Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Frederick Alan Moore

  70. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Carl Erik Nord

  71. Department of Surgery, Fundación Valle del Lili, Hospital Universitario del Valle, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

    Carlos A. Ordoñez

  72. Emergency Surgery and Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

    Gerson Alves Pereira Júnior

  73. Gastroenterology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Francisco Portela

  74. Department of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital and Imperial College London, London, UK

    Basant K. Puri

  75. Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Unit, Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK

    Mansoor Raza

  76. Department of Abdominal and General Surgery, General Hospital Jesenice, Jesenice, Slovenia

    Miran Rems

  77. Department of Surgery, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

    Boris E. Sakakushev

  78. Division of General Surgery and Organ Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy

    Gabriele Sganga

  79. Department of Infectious, Parasitic and Immune-Mediated Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy

    Patrizia Spigaglia

  80. Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA

    David B. Stewart

  81. Infectious Diseases and Intensive Care Unit, Pontchaillou University Hospital, Rennes, France

    Pierre Tattevin

  82. AP-HP Bichat hospital, Medical and infectious diseases ICU, Paris, France

    Jean Francois Timsit

  83. Emergency Medicine and Surgery, Macerata hospital, Macerata, Italy

    Cristian Tranà

  84. 1st Surgical Clinic, University Hospital of St. Ann Brno, Brno, Czech Republic

    Libor Urbánek

  85. Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Harry van Goor

  86. Infection Prevention/Epidemiology, Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Angela Vassallo

  87. Infection Control Unit, Angers University, CHU d’Angers, Angers, France

    Jean Ralph Zahar

  88. Department of Surgery, Ancona University Hospital, Ancona, Italy

    Emanuele Caproli

  89. Clinic of Infectious Diseases, St Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy

    Pierluigi Viale

Authors
  1. Massimo Sartelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark A. Malangoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fikri M. Abu-Zidan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ewen A. Griffiths
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefano Di Bella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lynne V. McFarland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ian Eltringham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vishal G. Shelat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. George C. Velmahos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ciarán P. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sahil Khanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Zaid M. Abdelsattar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Layan Alrahmani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Luca Ansaloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Goran Augustin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Miklosh Bala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Frédéric Barbut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Offir Ben-Ishay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Aneel Bhangu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Walter L. Biffl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Stephen M. Brecher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Adrián Camacho-Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Miguel A. Caínzos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Laura A. Canterbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Fausto Catena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Shirley Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Jill R. Cherry-Bukowiec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Jesse Clanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Federico Coccolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Maria Elena Cocuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Raul Coimbra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Charles H. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Yunfeng Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Jacek Czepiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Koray Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Zaza Demetrashvili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Isidoro Di Carlo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  38. Salomone Di Saverio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Irina Magdalena Dumitru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Catherine Eckert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  41. Christian Eckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Edward H. Eiland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Mushira Abdulaziz Enani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Mario Faro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Paula Ferrada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Joseph Derek Forrester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Gustavo P. Fraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  48. Jean Louis Frossard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  49. Rita Galeiras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Wagih Ghnnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Carlos Augusto Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  52. Venkata Gorrepati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  53. Mohamed Hassan Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  54. Torsten Herzog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Felicia Humphrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  56. Jae Il Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  57. Arda Isik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  58. Rao Ivatury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  59. Yeong Yeh Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  60. Paul Juang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  61. Luis Furuya-Kanamori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  62. Aleksandar Karamarkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  63. Peter K Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  64. Yoram Kluger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  65. Wen Chien Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  66. Francis D. LaBarbera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  67. Jae Gil Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  68. Ari Leppaniemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  69. Varut Lohsiriwat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  70. Sanjay Marwah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  71. John E. Mazuski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  72. Gokhan Metan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  73. Ernest E. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  74. Frederick Alan Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  75. Carl Erik Nord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  76. Carlos A. Ordoñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  77. Gerson Alves Pereira Júnior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  78. Nicola Petrosillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  79. Francisco Portela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  80. Basant K. Puri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  81. Arnab Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  82. Mansoor Raza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  83. Miran Rems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  84. Boris E. Sakakushev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  85. Gabriele Sganga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  86. Patrizia Spigaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  87. David B. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  88. Pierre Tattevin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  89. Jean Francois Timsit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  90. Kathleen B. To
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  91. Cristian Tranà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  92. Waldemar Uhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  93. Libor Urbánek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  94. Harry van Goor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  95. Angela Vassallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  96. Jean Ralph Zahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  97. Emanuele Caproli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  98. Pierluigi Viale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Sartelli.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

MS wrote the manuscript. All Authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sartelli, M., Malangoni, M.A., Abu-Zidan, F.M. et al. WSES guidelines for management of Clostridium difficile infection in surgical patients. World J Emerg Surg 10, 38 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-015-0033-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Vancomycin
  • Clostridium Difficile Infection
  • Pseudomembranous Colitis
  • Faecal Microbiota Transplantation
  • Nucleic Acid Amplification Test

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

ISSN: 1749-7922