Faculty of Medicine, University of Nis , Serbia ; Institute for Public Health Nis, Center of Microbiology , Serbia.
Braz J Microbiol. 2012 Jan;43(1):215-23. doi: 10.1590/S1517-838220120001000023. Epub 2012 Jun 1.
The aim of this study was to fortify the clinical importance and representation of toxigenic and non-toxigenic Clostridium difficile isolated from stool samples of hospitalized patients. This survey included 80 hospitalized patients with diarrhea and positive findings of Clostridium difficile in stool samples, and 100 hospitalized patients with formed stool as a control group. Bacteriological examination of a stool samples was conducted using standard microbiological methods. Stool sample were inoculated directly on nutrient media for bacterial cultivation (blood agar using 5% sheep blood, Endo agar, selective Salmonella Shigella agar, Selenite-F broth, CIN agar and Skirrow's medium), and to selective cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA) (Biomedics, Parg qe tehnicologico, Madrid, Spain) for isolation of Clostridium difficile. Clostridium difficile toxin was detected by ELISA-ridascreen Clostridium difficile Toxin A/B (R-Biopharm AG, Germany) and ColorPAC ToxinA test (Becton Dickinson, USA). Examination of stool specimens for the presence of parasites (causing diarrhea) was done using standard methods (conventional microscopy), commercial concentration test Paraprep S Gold kit (Dia Mondial, France) and RIDA(®)QUICK Cryptosporidium/Giardia Combi test (R-Biopharm AG, Germany). Examination of stool specimens for the presence of fungi (causing diarrhea) was performed by standard methods. All stool samples positive for Clostridium difficile were tested for Rota, Noro, Astro and Adeno viruses by ELISA - ridascreen (R-Biopharm AG, Germany). In this research we isolated 99 Clostridium difficile strains from 116 stool samples of 80 hospitalized patients with diarrhea. The 53 (66.25%) of patients with diarrhea were positive for toxins A and B, one (1.25%) were positive for only toxin B. Non-toxigenic Clostridium difficile isolated from samples of 26 (32.5%) patients. However, other pathogenic microorganisms of intestinal tract cultivated from samples of 16 patients. Examination of cultivated colonies revealed that most of cultivated species belonged to genera of Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., and Candida spp.. In control group, toxigenic Clostridium difficile cultivated from stool samples of two patients (2%) and non-toxigenic Clostridium difficile from samples of five patients (5%). This research confirmed clinical importance of toxigenic Clostridium difficile found in liquid stool samples of hospitalized patient, and the possibility of asymptomatic carriage in 2% of patients with formed stool.
本研究旨在强调从住院患者粪便样本中分离出的产毒和非产毒艰难梭菌的临床重要性和代表性。该研究纳入了 80 例腹泻且粪便艰难梭菌检测阳性的住院患者,以及 100 例粪便成形的住院患者作为对照组。采用标准微生物学方法对粪便样本进行细菌学检查。直接将粪便样本接种于营养培养基上进行细菌培养(使用 5%绵羊血的血琼脂、Endo 琼脂、选择性沙门氏菌志贺氏菌琼脂、Selenite-F 肉汤、CIN 琼脂和 Skirrow 培养基),并接种于选择性环丝氨酸-头孢西丁-果糖琼脂(CCFA)(Biomedics,Parg qe tehnicologico,Madrid,Spain)分离艰难梭菌。采用 ELISA-ridascreen 艰难梭菌毒素 A/B(R-Biopharm AG,德国)和 ColorPAC ToxinA 检测试剂盒(Becton Dickinson,美国)检测艰难梭菌毒素。采用标准方法(常规显微镜检查)、商业浓缩检测试剂盒 Paraprep S Gold(Dia Mondial,法国)和 RIDA(®)QUICK 隐孢子虫/贾第鞭毛虫联合检测试剂盒(R-Biopharm AG,德国)检查粪便样本中寄生虫(引起腹泻)的存在情况。采用标准方法检查粪便样本中真菌(引起腹泻)的存在情况。所有粪便样本中艰难梭菌阳性的样本均通过 ELISA-ridascreen(R-Biopharm AG,德国)检测轮状病毒、诺如病毒、星状病毒和腺病毒。在这项研究中,我们从 80 例腹泻住院患者的 116 份粪便样本中分离出 99 株艰难梭菌。53 例(66.25%)腹泻患者毒素 A 和 B 均为阳性,1 例(1.25%)仅毒素 B 阳性。从 26 例(32.5%)患者的样本中分离出非产毒艰难梭菌。然而,从 16 例患者的样本中培养出了其他肠道致病微生物。培养的菌落检查结果显示,大多数培养出的菌种属于弯曲菌属、沙门氏菌属和念珠菌属。在对照组中,从 2 例(2%)患者的粪便样本中培养出产毒艰难梭菌,从 5 例(5%)患者的粪便样本中培养出非产毒艰难梭菌。本研究证实了住院患者粪便中液态粪便样本中产毒艰难梭菌的临床重要性,以及在粪便成形的 2%患者中无症状携带的可能性。