Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Abstract of this article Free
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Articles citing this article
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Bliss, D. Z.
space
  arrow  Gerding, D. N.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

ARTICLE

Acquisition of Clostridium difficile and Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Tube Feeding

right arrow Donna Zimmaro Bliss, RN, PhD; Stuart Johnson, MD; Kay Savik, MS; Connie R. Clabots, MS; Keith Willard, MD; and Dale N. Gerding, MD

15 December 1998 | Volume 129 Issue 12 | Pages 1012-1019

Background: Clostridium difficile is the most common infectious cause of nosocomial diarrhea, but its role in diarrhea associated with tube feeding has not been rigorously investigated.

Objective: To determine the incidence of C. difficile acquisition and C. difficile-associated diarrhea in tube-fed and non-tube-fed patients.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: A university-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Patients: 76 consecutive hospitalized, tube-fed patients and 76 hospitalized, non-tube-fed patients. The two cohorts were matched for age, unit location, duration of hospitalization before surveillance, and severity of illness.

Measurements: Incidence of C. difficile acquisition, incidence of C. difficile-associated diarrhea, and C. difficile restriction endonuclease analysis typing results.

Results: More tube-fed patients than non-tube-fed patients acquired C. difficile (15 of 76 patients [20%] compared with 6 of 76 patients [8%]; P = 0.03) and developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea (7 of 76 patients [9%] compared with 1 of 76 patients [1%]; P = 0.03). The mean proportion (±SD) of surveillance days with diarrhea was greater for tube-fed patients after the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea than for tube-fed patients without this diarrhea (0.68 ± 0.4 compared with 0.22 ± 0.2 [95% CI for the mean difference, 0.08 to 0.84]). Postpyloric tube feeding (odds ratio, 3.14 [CI, 1.008 to 9.77]) and duration of surveillance (odds ratio, 1.08 [CI, 1.0009 to 1.16]) were risk factors for the acquisition of C. difficile. Nineteen restriction endonuclease analysis types of C. difficile were identified from 20 patients.

Conclusions: Hospitalized, tube-fed patients, especially those receiving postpyloric tube feeding, are at greater risk for the acquisition of C. difficile and the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea than are hospitalized, non-tube-fed patients. Clinicians should test for C. difficile in tube-fed patients with diarrhea.


Clostridium difficile is the most common infectious cause of nosocomial diarrhea [1, 2], but its role in diarrhea associated with tube feeding is unknown. The incidence of diarrhea in tube-fed patients has been reported to be as high as 60% [3, 4]. Epidemiologic studies of C. difficile infection have not focused on tube-fed patients to date, and most studies of tube-feeding tolerance have not investigated C. difficile as an etiologic agent of diarrhea. In a few studies of tube-feeding tolerance, C. difficile, as determined by cytotoxin assay, was not a significant risk factor for diarrhea [3, 5-8]. However, surveillance for C. difficile in these studies was uncontrolled, and information about the clinical and laboratory methods used in these studies is limited. Results of two smaller, uncontrolled studies [9, 10] suggest that C. difficile may be a cause of diarrhea in tube-fed patients. We used cultures and cytotoxin assays to prospectively study the acquisition of C. difficile and the incidence of C. difficile-associated diarrhea in tube-fed patients and in a matched cohort of non-tube-fed patients in an acute care setting.


Methods
space
up arrowTop
dotMethods
down arrowResults
down arrowDiscussion
down arrowAuthor & Article Info
down arrowReferences

Eligibility

Hospitalized adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) who began receiving nutritional support solely through tube feeding on the acute and critical care units at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis (MVAMC) were eligible for our study and were matched with non-tube-fed patients. A tube-fed patient was matched with a non-tube-fed patient if the two patients resided on the same unit, were the same sex, were the same age (± 10 years), were hospitalized at the MVAMC before study entry and within 4 weeks of one another, had the same severity of illness index score [11], and had the same MVAMC nursing care score (± 1). The duration of surveillance of each non-tube-fed patient during the study was at least 4 days and was at least 80% of the duration of monitoring of the matched tube-fed patient. If a patient changed units, the unit where he or she stayed the longest was used for matching purposes. In determining the severity of illness index score, C. difficile colonization and C. difficile-associated diarrhea were not considered. Patients were recruited between March 1992 and October 1993.

Patients were excluded from participation if they had an active psychosis, had received repeated treatment with sodium polystyrene sulfonate (Kayexalate, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, New York, New York), or had documented positive C. difficile culture or cytotoxin assay results within 1 year of the study. If a patient had a positive C. difficile culture or cytotoxin assay result at study entry, both that patient and the patient matched to that patient were excluded from further analysis (Figure 1). The MVAMC and University of Minnesota human subjects review committees approved our study.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Enrollment and outcomes of Clostridium difficile surveillance in acutely ill tube-fed patients and a matched cohort of non-tube-fed patients.

 

Patient Enrollment

We recruited 100 tube-fed patients into the study. Eight of these patients could not be matched with non-tube-fed patients, primarily because of long duration of tube feeding in an intensive or transitional care unit (range, 31 days to 77 days); 1 of the 8 could not be matched because of his young age (42 years) and duration of tube feeding in the medical intensive care unit (12 days). Data from these 8 patients were not included in the analysis (Figure 1). Nine tube-fed patients and 7 non-tube-fed patients had positive C. difficile cultures at baseline. These patients and the patients with whom they were matched were excluded from the analysis according to our exclusion criteria. The sample for analysis thus consisted of 76 tube-fed patients (74 men and 2 women) and 76 non-tube-fed patients (all men) (Figure 1).

Surveillance Procedures

We prospectively monitored tube-fed patients for C. difficile by obtaining rectal swab cultures (Baxter Diagnostics, Inc., Deerfield, Illinois) or stool specimen cultures at the following surveillance time points: before the start of tube feeding (baseline), at weekly intervals during tube feeding, and at cessation of tube feeding or before discharge from the MVAMC (if tube feeding was continued). In patients with an enterostomy, we obtained a rectal swab culture at baseline and at the end of the study for comparison with weekly cultures of enterostomy effluent. If patients who received tube feeding over the long term (≥ 20 days) received trials of the introduction of oral foods during tube feeding and the trials lasted for more than 2 weeks, surveillance for C. difficile was discontinued. Non-tube-fed patients were similarly monitored for C. difficile: Rectal swab cultures were obtained at the beginning of the study protocol, at weekly intervals throughout the study, and at the end of the surveillance period.

Stool frequency and consistency and the amount of enterostomy effluent were recorded daily for all patients. Stool consistency was categorized as hard and formed, soft but formed, unformed or loose, or liquid. Diarrhea was defined as at least three unformed or liquid stools per day, at least 250 mL of liquid stool per day collected in a rectal or colostomy bag, or at least 1500 mL of effluent per day collected in an ileostomy bag [4, 12]. Episodes of diarrhea induced by medical therapy [such as enemas or preoperative bowel catharsis] occurred in 23 patients and were excluded from the analysis. If a patient had diarrhea, we obtained stool specimens for C. difficile culture, alcohol shock C. difficile culture, and cytotoxin assay every 48 hours until a positive culture or cytotoxin assay result was seen or until diarrhea ceased. A patient was considered to have C. difficile-associated diarrhea when 1) he or she had a positive cytotoxin assay result or 2) a toxigenic strain of C. difficile was recovered from culture and the patient had diarrhea concurrent with or within 1 week of the positive C. difficile result (range, 0 days to 7 days). Clostridium difficile colonization was defined as a toxigenic or nontoxigenic C. difficile strain from culture in patients without diarrhea (asymptomatic colonization) or a nontoxigenic C. difficile strain from culture in patients with diarrhea (non-C. difficile diarrhea). Clinical data were recorded daily from the patients' medical records.

Laboratory Procedures

Stool, rectal swab, and enterostomy effluent specimens were cultured anaerobically for 48 hours at 35°C on prereduced cycloserine cefoxitin fructose egg yolk agar (500 µg/mL of cycloserine and 16 µg/mL of cefoxitin [Dimed, St. Paul, Minnesota]) and taurocholate cycloserine cefoxitin fructose egg yolk agar (1 mg/mL of sodium taurocholate [Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Missouri]). Clostridium difficile isolates were identified by characteristic colonial structure and Gram stain appearance [13]. Diarrheal stool samples were also tested for C. difficile by the alcohol shock method, as described by Clabots and colleagues [14].

For the C. difficile cytotoxin assay, each aliquot of diarrheal stool specimen was mixed with an equal volume of phosphate-buffered saline (pH, 7.2) and inoculated onto a monolayer of HEp-2 cells. Cytopathic changes neutralized by Clostridium sordellii antitoxin indicated the presence of C. difficile cytotoxin [15]. For the last 5 months of the study, stool cytotoxicity was determined by using the Bartels cytotoxicity assay for C. difficile toxin with human foreskin fibroblasts (≤ 10 passages) and C. difficile antitoxin (Baxter Diagnostics, Inc.) for neutralization.

All C. difficile isolates were inoculated into chopped meat broth and incubated at 36°C for 7 days. Supernatants from these cultures were tested for cytotoxicity as described elsewhere [16]. HindIII restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) typing was done on all isolates by using a rapid DNA extraction method. Organisms were typed and grouped by comparison of restriction patterns of known REA types in a library of several hundred unique types [16].

Statistical Analysis

The proportion of surveillance days with diarrhea was calculated by dividing the number of days with diarrhea by the number of days of surveillance. Independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare differences in interval data between groups, and chi-square analyses were used to compare differences in categorical data between groups. The Mantel-Haenszel test was used to determine linear association among ordinal variables. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Multivariate analyses to determine a model for C. difficile acquisition and C. difficile-associated diarrhea were done by using logistic regression analysis. We used chi-square or t-tests to screen the following reported risk factors for C. difficile acquisition or C. difficile-associated diarrhea [17, 18] for inclusion in the logistic regression models: age; diagnosis; type of unit; abdominal surgery during the study; duration of surveillance; duration of hospitalization before the study; severity of illness index score; treatment with any antibiotic; treatment with categories of antibiotics; and treatment with metoclopramide hydrochloride, antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, or sucralfate. Other variables screened for inclusion in the regression analyses were tube feeding and type of tube-feeding formula. As a follow-up to the initial regression analyses that analyzed tube feeding in general, we did multivariate analyses of risk factors for C. difficile acquisition or C. difficile-associated diarrhea after reclassifying tube feeding according to location of the feeding-tube tip. All patients who acquired C. difficile or developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea were exposed to antibiotics; therefore, multivariate analyses were done by using individual categories of antibiotics. Variables with P values ≤ 0.1 were candidates for the multivariate analyses. Coefficients of the regression variables were tested for significance by using a Wald chi-square statistic. Final models were based on a combination of odds ratios, P values, reported risk factors, and clinical judgment. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve [19] was generated to illustrate the effect of location of the feeding-tube tip on the rate of development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Data were analyzed by using SAS software, version 6.10 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) and SPS software, version 6.1 (SPS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).


Results
space
up arrowTop
up arrowMethods
dotResults
down arrowDiscussion
down arrowAuthor & Article Info
down arrowReferences

Cohort matching resulted in equivalent groups, as shown by a lack of significant differences in any of the variables used for matching tube-fed with non-tube-fed patients (Table 1). The two female tube-fed patients were matched with male non-tube-fed patients because matches of the same sex could not be accomplished within 4 weeks. Two tube-fed patients each had a colostomy, and one non-tube-fed patient had an ileostomy. The patients' primary diagnoses were categorized as head or neck cancer (39 patients), peripheral vascular disease (33 patients), neurologic disorders (18 patients), pulmonary disorders (17 patients), gastrointestinal disorders (10 patients), cardiac disorders (9 patients), abdominal aortic aneurysms (9 patients), genitourinary or renal disorders (6 patients), and miscellaneous disorders (such as multiple myeloma or hip fracture) (11 patients).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Matching Criteria and Nutritional Assessment of Tube-Fed and Non-Tube-Fed Patients*

 

Of the 76 tube-fed patients, 75 started tube feeding by continuous administration and 1 started it by intermittent administration. The method of tube-feeding administration was changed during the study in 34 of the 76 patients. Tube feeding was started with Osmolite (Ross Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio) in 61 patients, Osmolite HN (Ross Laboratories) in 9 patients, Impact (Sandoz Nutrition, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in 5 patients, and Vivonex (Sandoz Nutrition) in 1 patient. Thirty-four patients had nasogastric tubes, 30 had nasoduodenal tubes, 6 had percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, and 6 had nasojejunal or jejunostomy tubes. The type of tube was changed in 17 patients during the study. At the time the study was done, all nasoduodenal and nasojejunal feeding tubes at the MVAMC were inserted by using fluoroscopy.

Acquisition of Clostridium difficile and Incidence of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea

Overall acquisition of C. difficile was significantly greater in tube-fed patients than in non-tube-fed patients (15 of 76 patients [20%] compared with 6 of 76 patients [8%]; P = 0.03) (Figure 1). More tube-fed patients than non-tube-fed patients developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea (7 of 76 patients [9%] compared with 1 of 76 patients [1%]; P = 0.03) (Figure 1). Of the 54 patients with diarrhea who were tested for C. difficile cytotoxin, 3 had a positive result and all were tube fed. Two of the 3 patients with positive results on C. difficile cytotoxin assay also had positive C. difficile cultures. No difference was seen in the percentages of tube-fed patients and non-tube-fed patients (8 of 69 patients [12%] compared with 5 of 75 patients [7%]; P > 0.05) who became colonized with C. difficile (Figure 1).

Although the incidence of diarrhea was greater in tube-fed patients than in non-tube-fed patients (38 of 76 patients [50%] compared with 16 of 76 patients [21%]; P < 0.001), the proportion of surveillance days with diarrhea was greatest in tube-fed patients after the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. The proportion of surveillance days with diarrhea in tube-fed patients before the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea was not significantly different from that in tube-fed patients who did not develop C. difficile-associated diarrhea (mean ±SD, 0.28 ± 0.3 compared with 0.22 ± 0.2 [95% CI for the mean difference, –0.09 to 0.21]. The proportion of surveillance days with diarrhea in tube-fed patients after the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea was more than three times as great as the proportion in tube-fed patients who did not develop C. difficile-associated diarrhea (mean ±SD, 0.68 ± 0.4 compared with 0.22 ± 0.2 [CI for the mean difference, 0.08 to 0.84]).

The five types of feeding tubes were reclassified according to the location of the feeding-tube tip: prepyloric only (33 patients) or postpyloric at some time during the study (43 patients). The incidence of C. difficile-associated diarrhea was greater in tube-fed patients who received postpyloric tube feeding at some time during the study (6 of 43 patients [14%]) than in those who received prepyloric tube feeding continually (1 of 33 patients [3%]) or those without a feeding tube (1 of 76 patients [1%]) (P = 0.01 for postpyloric tube feeding compared with prepyloric tube feeding compared with no tube feeding). In the 3 patients with an enterostomy, both rectal and enterostomy effluent cultures were obtained at 12 surveillance time points. All cultures yielded the same results.

Antibiotic Exposure

Similarly high percentages of tube-fed patients and non-tube-fed patients received antibiotics (71 of 76 patients [93%] compared with 65 of 76 patients [86%]; P > 0.1). Tube-fed patients and non-tube-fed patients received the same median numbers of antibiotics (2 [range, 0 to 8] and 2 [range, 0 to 7]; P > 0.1, Mann-Whitney U test). Analysis of exposure to separate categories of antibiotics showed that more tube-fed patients than non-tube-fed patients received third-generation cephalosporins (46 of 76 patients [61%] compared with 26 of 76 patients [34%]; P = 0.001) and intravenous metronidazole (38 of 76 patients [50%] compared with 8 of 76 patients [11%]; P < 0.001).

Exposure to antibiotics was similar in patients who acquired C. difficile and those who did not (21 of 21 patients [100%] compared with 115 of 131 patients [88%]; P = 0.09). All 8 patients who developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea had received antibiotics. More patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhea than patients without this diarrhea received third-generation cephalosporins (4 of 8 patients [50%] compared with 24 of 144 patients [17%]; P = 0.02) and aminoglycosides (5 of 8 patients [63%] compared with 38 of 144 patients [26%]; P = 0.03). Exposure to aminoglycosides was highly correlated with exposure to third-generation cephalosporins (P = 0.001).

Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Acquisition and Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea

With regard to our initial question about whether tube feeding in general is an independent risk factor for the acquisition of C. difficile, multivariate logistic regression showed that tube feeding (odds ratio [OR], 3.1 [CI, 1.1 to 8.7]; P = 0.03) and duration of surveillance (OR, 1.1 [CI, 1.004 to 1.2]; P = 0.047) were significant but that age (OR, 1.0 [CI, 0.99 to 1.1]; P = 0.07) was not. For every day of monitoring beyond the average duration of surveillance (12 days), a patient's risk for acquiring C. difficile increased by 1.1. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea showed that tube feeding (OR, 9.0 [CI, 1.02 to 79.8]; P = 0.049) but not exposure to third-generation cephalosporins (OR, 4.1 [CI, 0.9 to 18.6]; P = 0.07) or intravenous metronidazole (OR, 0.45 [CI, 0.08 to 2.5]; P > 0.2) was a risk factor for the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. A tube-fed patient was nine times more likely than a non-tube-fed patient to develop C. difficile-associated diarrhea.

In the final multivariate models (Table 2), when tube feeding was classified according to location of the feeding-tube tip, the significant effect of postpyloric tube feeding on the acquisition of C. difficile and the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea was evident. A tube-fed patient with a feeding-tube tip placed distal to the pylorus was 3 times more likely to acquire C. difficile and 11 times more likely to develop C. difficile-associated diarrhea than was a non-tube-fed patient (Table 2). The relations of other variables in the models were unchanged (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Multivariate Risk Factors for Acquisition of Clostridium difficile and Development of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea

 

To further show the effect of tube feeding and feeding-tube tip location on the rate of development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea, we did a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three groups were generated for inclusion in the hypothetical model for time free of C. difficile-associated diarrhea: Group 1 was not tube fed, group 2 received prepyloric tube feeding, and group 3 received postpyloric tube feeding at least some of the time. Group 3 (for which the feeding-tube tip was placed distal to the pylorus) developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea at the fastest rate and had the lowest proportion of patients remaining free of C. difficile-associated diarrhea (P = 0.045) (Figure 2).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Time free of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in patients stratified according to location of feeding-tube tip. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that patients who received postpyloric tube feeding (solid line) had the fastest rate of development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea and the lowest proportion of patients remaining free of C. difficile-associated diarrhea (P = 0.045). Numbers in parentheses are numbers of patients remaining free of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. The dotted line represents non-tube-fed patients; the dashed line represents patients receiving prepyloric tube feeding.

 

Restriction Endonuclease Analysis Typing Results

Restriction endonuclease analysis typing was done on 80 C. difficile isolates from 20 patients and showed a diverse population of strains. Nineteen distinct REA types in 12 REA groups were identified. Eight REA groups (D, G, J, Y, AS, BM, BN, and CF) were toxigenic, and 4 (C, M, T, and AP) were nontoxigenic. In each of 2 patients, C. difficile isolates representing two different REA groups were recovered at different surveillance time points. The in vitro toxigenicity of both REA types was the same in each patient. The most striking difference in REA distribution was the presence of toxigenic group Y isolates (4 patients, 3 REA types) in tube-fed patients but not in non-tube-fed patients. The 4 tube-fed patients with group Y isolates resided on four different units.


Discussion
space
up arrowTop
up arrowMethods
up arrowResults
dotDiscussion
down arrowAuthor & Article Info
down arrowReferences

As far as we know, this is the first published, prospective, controlled, epidemiologic investigation of tube feeding as a risk factor for acquisition of C. difficile and development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Significantly more tube-fed patients (particularly those in whom feeding tubes were placed distal to the pylorus) than non-tube-fed patients acquired C. difficile and developed C. difficile-associated diarrhea. The use of antibiotics was so high in both groups of patients that we could not distinguish antibiotic use as a risk factor for C. difficile-associated diarrhea.

We propose several possible reasons for the association of C. difficile-associated diarrhea with tube feeding. First, tube-fed patients may have an increased risk for acquiring C. difficile from the hands of health care providers as a result of routine manipulation of the tube-feeding system. Clostridium difficile has frequently been recovered from the hands of personnel caring for patients infected with this pathogen; this implicates hospital staff as a source of transmission [17, 20, 21]. Studies of the sterility of tube-feeding systems have reported that manipulation of the systems is a primary cause of bacterial contamination of the systems and formulas [22-27]. Aseptic techniques, ready-to-use formulas, and closed delivery systems were found to reduce contamination of enteral feedings [28-32], and aseptic techniques were associated with a decline in rates of C. difficile-associated diarrhea [33-35]. During our surveillance period, an open tube-feeding system was used, the hang time for ready-to-use formulas was 8 hours, and tube-feeding administration sets were changed every 24 hours.

Second, contaminated formulas and delivery systems have been associated with nosocomial infection [36, 37]. In our study, this association was supported, or at least suggested, by the finding of C. difficile organisms from REA group Y only in tube-fed patients in widely scattered geographic locations in the hospital. Our REA typing data suggest sporadic transmission of and acquisition of disease by multiple strains of C. difficile, a finding noted previously at our institution and elsewhere [38, 39].

Third, tube feeding may have increased the risk for C. difficile-associated diarrhea in our study through the lack of dietary fiber in the formulas administered; this lack could have produced an intestinal environment conducive to the growth of C. difficile. In one study [40], ingestion of a fiber-free tube-feeding formula compared with a normal diet or a fiber-supplemented formula resulted in a lower concentration of short-chain fatty acids and a less acidic pH in colonic fluid. Short-chain fatty acids and acidic pH contribute to resistance to C. difficile colonization and proliferation in vitro [41, 42]. Whether a fiber-supplemented formula would have decreased or prevented C. difficile acquisition in our patient sample is uncertain, given the sample's high frequency of antibiotic use and the subsequent decreased fermentation of fiber by reduced numbers of colonic bacteria [9].

The significantly greater incidence of C. difficile acquisition and C. difficile-associated diarrhea in patients receiving postpyloric tube feeding suggests that delivery below the gastric acid barrier may facilitate the introduction and survival of C. difficile organisms. Although C. difficile spores are resistant to acid and susceptible hosts (such as patients exposed to antibiotics) may be infected with a low inoculum of this pathogen, vegetative cells are easily killed by gastric acid, reducing inocula by 99% [43]. Gastric acidity may be a relatively important host defense against C. difficile infection, as it is against infection by other enteric pathogens.

Duration of surveillance was a predictive risk factor for the acquisition of C. difficile. This result is consistent with the previous finding by Clabots and colleagues [44] that the rate at which hospitalized patients acquired C. difficile increased linearly with duration of hospital stay (approximately 8% per week). Increased duration of hospitalization has been suggested as a marker of severity of illness because it increases susceptibility to the acquisition of C. difficile [17]. Our non-tube-fed patients were matched with our tube-fed patients for duration of surveillance and hospitalization before the study, location in the intensive care unit, and severity of illness. Although the validity and reliability of Horn's severity of illness index have been established [45], the instrument may not have accounted for all differences in severity of illness between tube-fed and non-tube-fed patients.

Clinical testing for C. difficile in tube-fed patients with diarrhea was rare at the MVAMC before our study was done, probably because clinicians attributed diarrhea to tube feeding itself. Laboratory testing for C. difficile remains a controversial issue in clinical diagnosis and epidemiologic surveillance [46]. Our finding of a low incidence of positive cytotoxin assay results in patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhea who had a positive stool culture of a toxin-producing strain could be explained by a low inoculum of C. difficile in the study patients or by the low virulence of the recovered strains. We previously reported toxin production in vitro in 73% of C. difficile isolates recovered from 264 patients with diarrhea who had a positive stool culture but negative results on stool cytotoxin assay [47]. Kelly and coworkers [3] acknowledged the limitations of the cytotoxin assay in their investigation of diarrhea in tube-fed patients and concluded that using a selective culture medium for C. difficile, as we did, may have increased their ability to isolate the organism. We believe that our data support a policy of submitting stool specimens from tube-fed patients who have diarrhea for C. difficile testing, especially if C. difficile stool culturing is available.

In conclusion, our results indicate that tube feeding is a risk factor for the development of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Administering tube feeding below the pylorus increases the risk for C. difficile acquisition and C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Use of both culture and cytotoxin assay is recommended for the optimal detection of C. difficile in tube-fed patients. Increased enforcement of barrier infection-control measures during manipulation of tube-feeding systems may prevent C. difficile infection, although no data have shown the efficacy of these practices to date.

Drs. Johnson and Gerding: Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Chicago Healthcare System, 333 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611.

Ms. Clabots: Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Research Service 151, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417.

Dr. Willard: Riverview Office Tower, Suite 600, 8009 34th Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55425.


Author and Article Information
space
up arrowTop
up arrowMethods
up arrowResults
up arrowDiscussion
dotAuthor & Article Info
down arrowReferences

From University of Minnesota School of Nursing and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Northwestern University Medical School and Veterans Affairs Chicago Healthcare System, Chicago, Illinois.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the MVAMC nursing staff for data collection; the radiology, dietary, and physician staffs for the identification of patients for tube feeding; the microbiology laboratory staff for technical assistance; and Sue K. Donaldson, PhD, RN, FAAN, and R. Gregg Settle, PhD, for assistance in the planning of this study.
Grant Support: In part by Individual National Research Service Award Postdoctoral Fellowship 1F32-NR06746 NINR from the National Institutes of Health (Dr. Bliss) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Drs. Johnson and Gerding).
Requests for Reprints: Donna Zimmaro Bliss, RN, PhD, University of Minnesota School of Nursing, 6-101 Weaver-Densford Hall, 308 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0324; e-mail, bliss@tc.umn.edu.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Bliss and Ms. Savik: University of Minnesota School of Nursing, 6-101 Weaver-Densford Hall, 308 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0324.


References
space
up arrowTop
up arrowMethods
up arrowResults
up arrowDiscussion
up arrowAuthor & Article Info
dotReferences

1. Yannelli B, Gurevich I, Schoch PE, Cunha BA. Yield of stool cultures, ova and parasite tests, and Clostridium difficile determinations in nosocomial diarrheas. Am J Infect Control. 1988; 16:246-9.

2. Siegel DL, Edelstein PH, Nachamkin I. Inappropriate testing for diarrheal diseases in the hospital. JAMA. 1990; 263:979-82.

3. Kelly TW, Patrick MR, Hillman KM. Study of diarrhea in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1983; 11:7-9.

4. Bliss DZ, Guenter PA, Settle RG. Defining and reporting diarrhea in tube-fed patients-what a mess! Am J Clin Nutr. 1992; 55:753-9.

5. Brinson RR, Kolts BE. Hypoalbuminemia as an indicator of diarrheal incidence in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1987; 15:506-9.

6. Brinson RR, Kolts BE. Diarrhea associated with severe hypoalbuminemia: a comparison of a peptide-based chemically defined diet and standard enteral alimentation. Crit Care Med. 1988; 16:130-6.

7. Gottschlich MM, Warden GD, Michel M, Havens P, Kopcha R, Jenkins M, et al. Diarrhea in tube-fed burn patients: incidence, etiology, nutritional impact, and prevention. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1988; 12:338-45.

8. Keohane PP, Attrill H, Jones BJ, Brown I, Frost P, Silk DB. The roles of lactose and Clostridium difficile in the pathogenesis of enteral feeding associated diarrhoea. Clinical Nutrition. 1983; 1:259-64.

9. Guenter PA, Settle RG, Perlmutter S, Marino PL, DeSimone GA, Rolandelli RR. Tube feeding-related diarrhea in acutely ill patients. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1990; 13:277-80.

10. Edes TE, Walk BE, Austin JL. Diarrhea in tube-fed patients: feeding formula not necessarily the cause. Am J Med. 1990; 88:91-3.

11. Horn SD, Sharkey PD, Bertram DA. Measuring severity of illness: homogenous case mix groups. Med Care. 1983; 21:14-30.

12. Metcalf AM, Phillips SF. Ileostomy diarrhoea. Clin Gastroenterol. 1982; 15:705-22.

13. Holdeman LV, Cato EP, Moore WE, eds. Anaerobe Laboratory Manual, 4th ed. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ; 1977.

14. Clabots CR, Gerding SJ, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gerding DN. Detection of asymptomatic Clostridium difficile carriage by an alcohol shock procedure. J Clin Microbiol. 1993; 27:2386-7.

15. Peterson LR, Holter JJ, Shanholtzer CJ, Garrett CR, Gerding DN. Detection of Clostridium difficile toxins A (enterotoxin) and B (cytotoxin) in clinical specimens. Evaluation of a latex agglutination test. J Clin Pathol. 1986; 86:208-11.

16. Clabots CR, Johnson S, Bettin KM, Mathie PA, Mulligan ME, Schaberg DR, et al. Development of a rapid and efficient restriction endonuclease analysis typing system for Clostridium difficile and correlation with other typing systems. J Clin Microbiol. 1993; 31:1870-5.

17. McFarland LV, Surawicz CM, Stamm WE. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile carriage and C. difficile-associated diarrhea in a cohort of hospitalized patients. J Infect Dis. 1990; 162:678-84.

18. Gerding DN, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Teasley DG, Gebhard RL, Schwartz ML, et al.Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis in adults. A prospective case–controlled epidemiologic study. Arch Intern Med. 1986; 186:95-100.

19. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1958; 53:457-81.

20. Kim KH, Fekety R, Batts DH, Brown D, Cudmore M, Silva J Jr, et al. Isolation of Clostridium difficile from the environment and contacts of patients with antibiotic-associated colitis. J Infect Dis. 1981; 143:42-50.

21. Malamou-Ladas H, O'Farrell S, Nash JQ, Tabaqchali S. Isolation of Clostridium difficile from patients and the environment of hospital wards. J Clin Pathol. 1983; 36:88-92.

22. Anderson KR, Norris DJ, Godfrey LB, Avent CK, Butterworth CE Jr. Bacterial contamination of tube-feeding formulas. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1984; 8:673-8.

23. Crocker KS, Krey SH, Markovic M, Steffee WP. Microbial growth in clinically used enteral delivery systems. Am J Infect Control. 1986; 14:250-6.

24. Donius MA. Contamination of a prefilled ready-to-use enteral feeding system compared with a refillable bag. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1993; 17:461-4.

25. Kotilainen HR, Gantz NM. Contamination of enteral feedings: an evaluation of environmental and procedural sources. In: Proceedings of the Ross Laboratories Workshop on Contamination of Enteral Feeding Products during Clinical Use. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories; 1983:16-9.

26. Schroeder P, Fisher D, Volz M, Paloucek J. Microbial contamination of enteral feeding solutions in a community hospital. J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1983; 7:364-8.

27. Anderton A. Bacterial contamination of enteral feeds and feeding systems. Clinical Nutrition. 1993; 12(Suppl 1):S16-32.

28. Wagner DR, Elmore MF, Knoll DM. Evaluation of "closed" vs "open" systems for the delivery of peptide-based enteral diets. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1994; 18:453-7.

29. Anderton A, Aidoo KE. Decanting-a source of contamination of enteral feeds? Clinical Nutrition. 1990; 9:157-62.

30. Anderton A, Aidoo KE. The effect of handling procedures on microbial contamination of enteral feeds-a comparison of the use of sterile vs non-sterile gloves. J Hosp Infect. 1988; 11:364-72.

31. Mickschl DB, Davidson LI, Flournoy DJ, Parker DE. Contamination of enteral feedings and diarrhea in patients in intensive care units. Heart Lung. 1990; 19:362-70.

32. Freedland CP, Roller RD, Wolfe BM, Flynn NM. Microbial contamination of continuous drip feedings. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1989; 13:18-22.

33. Johnson S, Gerding DN, Olson MM, Weiler MD, Hughes RA, Clabots CR, et al. Prospective controlled study of vinyl glove use to interrupt Clostridium difficile nosocomial transmission. Am J Med. 1990; 88:137-40.

34. Bettin K, Clabots C, Mathie P, Willard K, Gerding DN. Effectiveness of soap vs. chlorhexidine gluconate for removal of Clostridium difficile from bare hands and gloved hands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994; 15:697-702.

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

36. Thurn J, Crossley K, Gerdts A, Maki M, Johnson J. Enteral hyperalimentation as a source of nosocomial infection. J Hosp Infect. 1990; 15:203-17.

37. Levy J, Van Laethem Y, Verhaegen G, Perpete C, Butzler JP, Wenzel RP. Contaminated enteral nutrition solutions as a cause of nosocomial bloodstream infection: a study using plasmid fingerprinting. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1989; 13:228-34.

38. Johnson S, Clabots CR, Linn FV, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gerding DN. Nosocomial Clostridium difficile colonisation and disease. Lancet. 1990; 336:97-100.

39. 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.

40. Zimmaro DM, Rolandelli RH, Koruda MJ, Settle RG, Stein TP, Rombeau JL. Isotonic tube feeding formula induces liquid stool in normal subjects: reversal by pectin. JPEN J Parenter Enterol Nutr. 1989; 13:117-23.

41. Rolfe RD. Role of volatile fatty acids in colonization resistance to Clostridium difficile. Infect Immun. 1984; 45:185-91.

42. Rolfe RD, Iaconis JP. Intestinal colonization of infant hamsters with Clostridium difficile. Infect Immun. 1983; 42:480-6.

43. Wilson KH, Sheagren JN, Freter R. Population dynamics of ingested Clostridium difficile in the gastrointestinal tract of the Syrian hamster. J Infect Dis. 1985; 151:355-61.

44. Clabots CR, Johnson S, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gerding DN. Acquisition of Clostridium difficile by hospitalized patients: evidence for colonized new admissions as a source of infection. J Infect Dis. 1992; 166:561-7.

45. Horn SD, Horn RA. Reliability and validity of the Severity of Illness index. Med Care. 1986; 24:159-78.

46. Gerding DN, Johnson S, Peterson LR, Mulligan ME, Silva J Jr.Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995; 16:459-77.

47. Clabots CR, Johnson S, Olson MM, Bettin KM, Willard KE, Peterson LR, et al.Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) diagnosis in patients with positive stool culture (CULT) and negative stool cytotoxin (CTX) assays [Abstract]. Program and Abstracts of the 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1993.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JPEN J Parenter Enteral NutrHome page
K. Whelan, P. A. Judd, V. R. Preedy, and M. A. Taylor
Covert Assessment of Concurrent and Construct Validity of a Chart to Characterize Fecal Output and Diarrhea in Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, March 1, 2008; 32(2): 160 - 168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
N. J. Asha, D. Tompkins, and M. H. Wilcox
Comparative Analysis of Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Molecular Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea Due to Clostridium difficile, Clostridium perfringens, and Staphylococcus aureus.
J. Clin. Microbiol., August 1, 2006; 44(8): 2785 - 2791.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch SurgHome page
M. Melis, A. Fichera, and M. K. Ferguson
Bowel Necrosis Associated With Early Jejunal Tube Feeding: A Complication of Postoperative Enteral Nutrition
Arch Surg, July 1, 2006; 141(7): 701 - 704.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Nutr.Home page
K. Whelan, P. A. Judd, V. R. Preedy, R. Simmering, A. Jann, and M. A. Taylor
Fructooligosaccharides and Fiber Partially Prevent the Alterations in Fecal Microbiota and Short-Chain Fatty Acid Concentrations Caused by Standard Enteral Formula in Healthy Humans
J. Nutr., August 1, 2005; 135(8): 1896 - 1902.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nutr Clin PractHome page
J. A. Weckwerth
Monitoring Enteral Nutrition Support Tolerance in Infants and Children
Nutr Clin Pract, October 1, 2004; 19(5): 496 - 503.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
C. Thomas, M. Stevenson, and T. V. Riley
Antibiotics and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: a systematic review
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., June 1, 2003; 51(6): 1339 - 1350.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin Nurs ResHome page
K. J. Lebak, D. Z. Bliss, K. Savik, and K. M. Patten-Marsh
What's New on Defining Diarrhea in Tube-Feeding Studies?
Clin Nurs Res, May 1, 2003; 12(2): 174 - 204.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
N. Safdar and D. G. Maki
The Commonality of Risk Factors for Nosocomial Colonization and Infection with Antimicrobial-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, Gram-Negative Bacilli, Clostridium difficile, and Candida
Ann Intern Med, June 4, 2002; 136(11): 834 - 844.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
P. Eggimann and D. Pittet
Infection Control in the ICU
Chest, December 1, 2001; 120(6): 2059 - 2093.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Infect. Immun.Home page
S. P. Sambol, M. M. Merrigan, D. Lyerly, D. N. Gerding, and S. Johnson
Toxin Gene Analysis of a Variant Strain of Clostridium difficile That Causes Human Clinical Disease
Infect. Immun., October 1, 2000; 68(10): 5480 - 5487.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
L. Kyne, M. Warny, A. Qamar, and C. P. Kelly
Asymptomatic Carriage of Clostridium difficile and Serum Levels of IgG Antibody against Toxin A
N. Engl. J. Med., February 10, 2000; 342(6): 390 - 397.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JWatch Infect. DiseasesHome page
Tube Feeding Promotes C. difficile Infection
Journal Watch Infectious Diseases, February 1, 1999; 1999(201): 4 - 4.
[Full Text]


box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Abstract of this article Free
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Articles citing this article
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Bliss, D. Z.
space
  arrow  Gerding, D. N.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space


 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online