RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a clinical and laboratory diagnosis. Populations at higher risk of developing disease require a high clinical index of suspicion for laboratory testing to avoid incorrect assumptions of colonization. Common risk factors include recent antibiotic use, elderly (>65 years old), and immunocompromised patients. C. difficile assays should be ordered in an algorithm approach to diagnose an infection rather than colonization. Screening tests are widely available in hospital systems, but novel molecular testing may aid in diagnosis in patients with inconclusive or discordant antigen and toxin test results. Methods: Data was extracted from PubMed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases based on the keywords "clostridioides difficile", "toxin assay", and "toxic megacolon". The data extracted is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A total of 27 reports were included in this systematic review. RESULTS: Testing patients with a significant gastrointestinal surgical history, hypogammaglobulinemia, inflammatory bowel disease, intensive care unit, and immunocompromised patients for CDI is highly recommended. Diarrhea in these subsets of patients requires correlation of clinical context and an understanding of assay results to avoid over- and under-treating. CONCLUSION: CDI should be considered in all patients with traditional risk factors. Heightened clinical suspicion of CDI is required in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia, transplant recipients, patients with gastrointestinal surgical history, and inflammatory bowel disease. Testing should be limited to patients with clinical manifestations of CDI to ensure a high pretest probability for test interpretation. Healthcare workers should adhere to testing algorithms to optimize yield in the appropriate clinical context. Diagnostic assays should follow a sequential, stepwise approach to categorize the toxin expression status of the bacteria accurately.
RESUMO
Although percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) has been advocated as an alternative to open tracheostomy (OT) its relative safety has been questioned repeatedly. This study prospectively compared the safety and complications of PDT and OT. Ninety-four patients underwent PDT and 252 patients underwent OT at this institution from December 1998 through April 2000 with the choice of procedure left to the operator. OT was performed in the operating room whereas PDT was performed in intensive care units (ICUs). PDT was performed by surgeons and medical intensivists under a strict institutional policy and procedure governing patient selection and conduct of the procedure. Complications were defined as bleeding, loss of airway, hypotension, hypoxia, tracheostomy tube malposition, subcutaneous emphysema, infection, and conversion of PDT to OT. All patients survived the operation. PDT and OT had similar complication rates: 2.1 per cent for PDT versus 2.8 per cent for OT (P = not significant). Postoperative bleeding, which was the most frequent complication, occurred in one PDT patient and four OT patients. One PDT patient required conversion to OT as a result of extensive tracheal fibrosis. Subcutaneous emphysema, soft-tissue infection, and a malpositioned tracheostomy tube were the remaining complications in the OT patients. We conclude that the complication rates of PDT and OT are comparable. The choice of PDT or OT should be dictated by the surgeon's training and experience, the patient's condition, neck anatomy, and stability for transfer to the operating room.
