Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-qp9dn Total loading time: 0.209 Render date: 2021-06-21T20:05:12.384Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Use of a Perianal Swab Compared With a Stool Sample to Detect Symptomatic Clostridium difficile Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2017

Marisa A. Montecalvo
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
Emnet Sisay
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
Donna McKenna
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
Guiqing Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
Paul Visintainer
Affiliation:
Office of Research, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts
Gary P. Wormser
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
Corresponding

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of a perianal swab to detect CDI.

METHODS

A perianal swab was collected from each inpatient with a positive stool sample for C. difficile (by polymerase chain reaction [PCR] test) and was tested for C. difficile by PCR and by culture. The variables evaluated included demographics, CDI severity, bathing before perianal swab collection, hours between stool sample and perianal swab, cycle threshold (Ct) to PCR positivity, and doses of CDI treatment before stool sample and before perianal swab.

RESULTS

Of 83 perianal swabs, 59 (71.1%) tested positive for C. difficile by PCR when perianal swabs were collected an average of 21 hours after the stool sample. Compared with the respective stool sample, the perianal sample was less likely to grow C. difficile (P=.005) and had a higher PCR Ct (P<.001). A direct, significant but weak correlation was detected between the Ct for a positive perianal sample and the respective stool sample (r=0.36; P=.006). An inverse dose relationship was detected between PCR positivity and CDI treatment doses before perianal swab collection (P=.27).

CONCLUSION

Perianal swabs are a simple method to detect C. difficile tcdB gene by PCR, with a sensitivity of 71%. These data were limited because stool samples and perianal swabs were not collected simultaneously. Compared with stool samples, the perianal Ct values and culture results were consistent with a lower bacterial load on the perianal sample due to the receipt of more CDI treatment before collection or unknown factors affecting perianal skin colonization.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:658–662

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Cohen, SH, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, 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;31:431455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US healthcare system. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:20392046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Montecalvo, MA, Jarvis, WR, Uman, J, et al. Infection control measures reduce transmission of vancomycin resistant enterococci in an endemic setting. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:269272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Luna, RA, Boyanton, BL Jr, Mehta, S, et al. Rapid stool-based diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by real-time PCR in a children’s hospital. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:851857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Multidrug-resistant organism and Clostridium difficile infection (MDRO/CDI) module. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/12pscMDRO_CDADcurrent.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed February 24, 2017.Google Scholar
6. Surawicz, CM, Brandt, LJ, Binion, DG, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:478498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Sunkesula, VC, Kundrapu, S, Muganda, C, Sethi, AK, Donskey, CJ. Does empirical Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) therapy result in false-negative CDI diagnostic test results? Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:494500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Shakir, FA, Thompson, D, Marlar, R, Ali, T. A novel use of rectal swab test for Clostridium difficile infection by real-time PCR. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:14441445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Kundrapu, S, Sunkesula, VCK, Jury, LA, Sethi, AK, Donskey, CJ. Utility of perirectal swab specimens for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:15271530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rogers, DS, Kundrapu, S, Sunkesula, VCK, Donskey, CJ. Comparison of perirectal versus rectal swabs for detection of asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic. Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 2013;51:34213422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. McFarland, LV, Mulligan, ME, Kwok, RY, Stamm, WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 1989;320:204210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. 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;166:561567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Riggs, MM, Sethi, AK, Zabarsky, TF, Eckstein, EC, Jump, RL, Donskey, CJ. Asymptomatic carriers are a potential source for transmission of epidemic and non-epidemic Clostridium difficile strains among long-term care facility residents. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:992998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Longtin, Y, Paquet-Boulduc, B, Gilca, R, et al. Effect of detecting and isolating Clostiridium difficile carriers at hospital admission on the incidence of C. difficile infections: a quasi-experimental controlled study. JAMA. Intern Med 2016;176:796804.Google Scholar
15. Eyre, DW, Cule, ML, Wilson, DJ, et al. Diverse sources of C. difficile infection identified on whole-genome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2013;369:11951205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Curry, SR, Muto, CA, Schlackman, JL, et al. Use of multilocus variable number of tandem repeats analysis genotyping to determine the role of asymptomatic carriers in C. difficile transmission. Clin Infect. Dis 2013;57:10941102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Use of a Perianal Swab Compared With a Stool Sample to Detect Symptomatic Clostridium difficile Infection
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Use of a Perianal Swab Compared With a Stool Sample to Detect Symptomatic Clostridium difficile Infection
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Use of a Perianal Swab Compared With a Stool Sample to Detect Symptomatic Clostridium difficile Infection
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *