English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Testing for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) commonly involves checking for the presence of toxins A and B by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or nucleic acid amplification (NAA). The former is very specific, but not very sensitive. The latter is very sensitive. Beginning in 2011, our hospital incorporated an algorithm that involved testing liquid stool specimens for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin by EIA. For discrepant results, the stool specimen was tested for the presence of toxin by NAA. We sought to determine whether there was a difference in the baseline characteristics or outcomes between the two groups. Methods We performed a chart review of all subjects who tested positive for CDI by either method between 2011 and 2016 at Vidant Medical Center, a 909 bed, tertiary care teaching hospital. Testing was only performed on liquid stool specimens. Subjects less than 18 years of age were excluded. Repeat positive specimens were excluded. We collected demographic data including age, gender, baseline temperature, white blood cell count, and serum lactate and albumin. Length of stay and in-hospital mortality were also determined for both groups. Comparison of the two groups was done using t-test for continuous and chi-square analysis for categorical variables. Results Over the 6 year period, there were 535 positive test results. 243 specimens tested positive by EIA/GDH (EIA +); 292 specimens tested positive by GDH/NAA (NAA +). Compared with the EIA + group, the NAA + group was younger (61.8 years vs. 65.1 years, P = 0.01). There were no statistical differences in the presence of abdominal tenderness, temperature >38oC, serum albumin, serum lactate, length of stay, or mortality between the two groups. The EIA + group was statistically more likely to have leukocytosis (WBC >20,000 cells/mm3) at the time of the CDI testing compared with the NAA + group (P = 0.0002). Conclusion There do appear to be some clinical differences in the presentation of subjects who test positive for CDI by EIA/GDH compared with those who test positive only by GDH/NAA. These differences do not appear to affect length of stay or mortality. Disclosures P. P. Cook, Gilead: Grant Investigator, Grant recipient; Merck: Grant Investigator, Grant recipient; Pfizer: Grant Investigator and Shareholder, Grant recipient

open forum infectious diseases

Clostridium difficile Testing Algorithm: Is There a Difference in Patients Who Test Positive by Enzyme Immunoassay vs. Those Who Only Test Positive by Nucleic Acid Amplification Methodology?