Nomenclature of
1. Introduction
The gastrointestinal tract has various functions including digestion, the production of hormones with local and systemic effects, a major role in immunological function, and acting as a barrier against antigens within its lumen. The intestinal microflora is an ecosystem which harbours over 400 bacterial species, predominantly anaerobes which outnumber facultative anaerobes. Most flora is present in the large bowel, mainly in the lumen and attached to the mucosa, but they do not normally penetrate the bowel wall. Intestinal bacteria form an important part of the enterohepatic circulation. Metabolites conjugated in the liver (including drugs and endogenous compounds) are excreted in bile to be deconjugated by bacterial enzymes in the intestine, so that they can then be absorbed across the intestine into the portal circulation and returned to the liver. Antibiotics that alter the intestinal flora can change the fecal excretion and the serum levels of these metabolites. Bacterial flora also increase fiber digestion and are believed to decrease the risk of gastrointestinal infections by interfering with gut pathogens. Our intestine harbours low concentrations of potentially pathogenic organisms (such as
Gastrointestinal dysfunction or gut failure frequently occurs in seriously ill patients and is responsible for bacterial translocation. This may in turn cause sepsis, with the initiation of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), and / or death.[2] Gut dysfunction is also present in other conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease,
2. Sepsis in liver cirrhosis
Liver cirrhosis occurs in response to chronic liver injury and involves the development of regenerative nodules surrounded by fibrous bands in the liver parenchyma. This in turn causes distortion of the hepatic vasculature, leading to portal hypertension and end stage liver disease. Cirrhosis leads to shunting of portal and arterial blood into the hepatic central veins, thus compromising the exchange between hepatic sinusoids and hepatocytes. Cirrhosis causes an impaired hepatocyte activity, portal hypertension and an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatic vascular alterations and portal hypertension will in turn cause splanchnic vasodilatation, vasoconstriction and decreased renal perfusion, water and salt retention and an increased cardiac output.[3]
The estimated prevalence of cirrhosis in the United States is 0.15% [4], though this may be an underestimate due to the high prevalence of undiagnosed cirrhosis in hepatitis C and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH). Similar numbers have been reported from Europe, and numbers are even higher in most Asian and African countries where chronic viral hepatitis B or C are frequent. Since compensated cirrhosis is frequently not detected until routine investigations are performed, a reasonable estimate is that up to 1% of the world population may have histological cirrhosis. Alcoholic liver disease and hepatitis C are the commonest causes of cirrhosis in the Western world, while hepatitis B is the most common cause in most parts of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Cryptogenic cirrhosis (cirrhosis without a recognised cause) is nowadays rarely diagnosed, particularly after the identification of the hepatitis C virus in the late 1980s and with the identification of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in obese and diabetic subjects.[3]
Bacteraemic infections are more frequent in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. 9% of the overall number of bacteraemic episodes in newly-admitted patients occur in cirrhotic patients [5] and 46% of cirrhotic patients have bacterial infections on admission.[6] Advanced cirrhotics are more likely to have the systemic inflammatory response syndrome. This syndrome correlates with bacterial infection at admission and has been shown to be associated with a poor outcome.[7] Animal studies have identified the gut as the principal source of infection in liver cirrhosis, mainly through bacterial overgrowth and translocation in the small bowel. However, cultures of small intestinal mucosal bacteria in cirrhotic patients have shown that these microbiota are qualitatively and quantitatively normal. This has shifted attention towards factors that decrease gut integrity, or alter the removal of translocating bacteria as causative factors of bacteraemia in cirrhosis.[8] It is hypothesized that in cirrhosis the intestine is more permeable, allowing bacteria easy access into the circulation through the gut mucosa with consequent macrophage activation. This permeability is further increased in patients with portal hypertension. Serum levels of interleukin-6 and soluble receptors of tumor necrosis factor were shown to be significantly higher in HIV-HCV co-infected and HCV mono-infected patients with decompensated cirrhosis when compared with those with compensated liver disease.[9] This susceptibility was also demonstrated in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.[10] In patients with cirrhosis and severe sepsis, high production of pro-inflammatory cytokines seems to cause a deterioration in liver function and predisposes to the development of shock, renal failure, acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome, coagulopathy, or hepatic encephalopathy. Variants of the NOD2 gene (100fs and G908R) appear to increase bacterial translocation in cirrhotics and have been associated with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in a recent study.[11] There is an increased risk for culture-positive spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and infected ascites in cirrhotic patients with these variants.[11]
The second theory is that patients with chronic liver disease tend to have impaired bacterial clearance. This was demonstrated when quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using primers that amplify all known bacteria was used to measure bacteraemia following tooth-brushing. The investigators showed greater than 75% bacteraemia following tooth-brushing, but while control subjects were able to clear this bacteraemia, subjects with cirrhosis had prolonged bacteraemia, suggesting that cirrhotic patients may be more susceptible to sepsis because of ineffective bacterial clearance.[12]
The mortality rate of patients with liver cirrhosis is significantly higher than that of patients with other diseases when they develop bacteraemia, and underlying cirrhosis is an independent risk factor for mortality in bacteraemic patients. In-hospital mortality rate in patients with liver cirrhosis and sepsis was shown to be up to 30% [13-16], with another 30% dying by 1 year.[16] Factors which are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality are the presence of more than 1 site of infection, pneumonia, Child’s C status and a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of 17 or more. In-hospital mortality rate increases as the number of factors increases (7% with one factor, 21% with two factors, 87% with three factors and 100% with four factors).[13] The initial CRP level does not predict mortality secondary to sepsis in liver cirrhosis patients. However, serial CRP measurements during the first week of antimicrobial therapy may be a useful prognostic factor for mortality in cirrhotic patients.[14] In a nationwide Korean surveillance study comparing bacteraemia in patients with liver cirrhosis with bacteraemia in patients with other liver diseases, patients with cirrhosis were shown to be more likely to have
One of the sequelae of cirrhosis is the development of ascites. Patients with ascites have an increased risk of developing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) with a prevalence of 10-30%. Even with early diagnosis and management of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, mortality is still 31% at 1 month and 66% at 12 months.[16] SBP is a very common bacterial infection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.[17] Bacterial translocation is believed to be responsible for the first step in the pathogenesis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Translocation is only possible because of the concurrent failure of the defensive mechanisms in cirrhosis. Research has confirmed an increased bacterial translocation in cirrhotic rats. There is also pronounced impairment of gastrointestinal tract motility in cirrhosis. A disturbance of the gut microflora thus occurs and this, in association with changes in the permeability of the gastrointestinal tract, causes the passage of microorganisms and endotoxins to the mesenteric lymph nodes.[18] The diagnosis of SBP is based on diagnostic paracentesis. Half the episodes of SBP are present on hospital admission while the rest are acquired during hospitalization.[19] SBP may present with peritonitic signs (abdominal pain, tenderness, vomiting, ileus), fever, elevated white cell counts, tachycardia, hypotension, worsening of liver function, hepatic encephalopathy, renal failure and gastrointestinal bleeding. However, cirrhotic patients with SBP may be completely asymptomatic. Empirical antibiotics should be started immediately following the diagnosis of SBP. The first line antibiotic treatment in SBP are the third generation cephalosporins, as the commonest causative organisms are Gram-negative aerobic bacteria.[20] Other options include co-amoxiclav, ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin (though quinolones should not be used in patients who are using these antibiotics for SBP prophylaxis, in areas where there is a high prevalence of quinolone resistance or in nosocomial SBP). Antibiotics are effective in the management of SBP in approximately 90% of patients. Failure of antibiotic therapy usually occurs due to bacterial resistance or because of missed secondary bacterial peritonitis. If secondary bacterial peritonitis has been excluded, the antibiotic needs to be changed according to the culture and sensitivity results of the isolated organisms, or else modified to an alternative empiric broad spectrum agent.[21]
Hepato-renal syndrome (HRS) refers to the rapid deterioration of renal function in patients with liver cirrhosis. It occurs in approximately 30% of patients with SBP treated with antibiotics alone and is associated with a very poor survival. Albumin administration (1.5 g/kg at diagnosis and 1 g/kg on day 3) decreases the frequency and mortality of HRS in cirrhotic patients with SBP. For this reason, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines recommend that all cirrhotic patients who develop SBP should be treated with intravenous albumin and empirical antibiotics.[21]
In patients at high risk of developing SBP, antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended.[21] Since it is hypothesised that SBP occurs following the translocation of enteric Gram negative bacteria from the gut to the circulation, the ideal prophylactic antibiotic needs to be effective at decreasing the amounts of these organisms in the gut without altering the protective anaerobic flora. The use of prophylactic antibiotics should be strictly restricted to patients at high risk of SBP to decrease the risk of developing resistance. These high-risk patient populations include cirrhotics with acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage, those with low total protein content in ascitic fluid and no prior history of SBP (primary prophylaxis) and patients with a previous history of SBP (secondary prophylaxis). In such high-risk patients, antibiotics should be started immediately (i.e. following upper gastrointestinal bleed, after a first episode of SBP or upon finding low total protein) and are recommended life-long, or until liver transplant is performed.
Bacterial infection is a major problem in cirrhotic patients with acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage, occurring in 25 - 65% of these patients.[22] Bacteraemia in patients with variceal hemorrhage is associated with a decreased ability to control bleeding [23], an increased rebleeding rate, and increased hospital mortality.[24] Antibiotic prophylaxis has been shown to prevent infection in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding and decrease the rate of rebleeding. A meta-analysis of five studies performed in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding [25-29] has shown that antibiotic prophylaxis significantly decreased both the incidence of severe infections (SBP and/or sepsis) and mortality. The preferred antibiotic for SBP prophylaxis is norfloxacin (400 mg/12 h orally for 7 days) which provides selective intestinal decontamination. Norfloxacin is a quinolone antibiotic with antibacterial activity against Gram-negative bacteria but not against Gram-positive cocci or anaerobic bacteria. However, in view of the increasing incidence of quinolone-resistant bacteraemia [30-32], and because a substantial number of infections in patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage are caused by Gram-positive bacteria, ceftriaxone has been studied as a prophylactic agent in cirrhotics with gastrointestinal bleeding. A study comparing oral norfloxacin with intravenous ceftriaxone for the prophylaxis of bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding showed that ceftriaxone was more effective than norfloxacin in the prevention of infections.[33] The main disadvantage with ceftriaxone is that it must be given intravenously and is therefore limited to hospital use. Cirrhotic patients with low protein concentrations (<10 g/L) in their ascitic fluid and/or high serum bilirubin levels are at an increased risk of developing SBP.[34] Studies have shown that norfloxacin (400 mg/day) is effective as a prophylactic agent against SBP and improves survival in patients with low total protein in their ascitic fluid.[35-37] Following an episode of SBP, the cumulative recurrence rate at 1 year is approximately 70% [38], with a 1-year survival probability of 30–50% and a 2-year survival probability of 25–30%. Prophylactic norfloxacin (400 mg/day, orally) reduces the risk of recurrent SBP. Other antibiotics which may be used in SBP prophylaxis after the first episode of SBP include ciprofloxacin (750 mg once weekly, orally) or co-trimoxazole (800 mg sulfamethoxazole and 160 mg trimethoprim daily orally), but the evidence with these antibiotics is not as strong as with norfloxacin. The EASL guidelines also recommend that patients recovering from SBP should be considered for liver transplantation.[21] The American Association for the Study of the Liver and the British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines [39,40] have similar recommendations for the management of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and its prophylaxis.
Terlipressin is a vasoactive agent used in patients with septic shock and which has a selective affinity to vascular V1 receptors. It is an effective pressor agent in patients with catecholamine-unresponsive septic shock. Additional studies are needed to identify the best time to start terlipressin, the efficacy and dosages of continuous infusion versus bolus administration as well as the safety and efficacy of this compound in comparison with other vasoactive drugs.[41,42]
3. Acute cholangitis
Acute cholangitis and biliary sepsis are severe infectious diseases, frequently observed in patients with obstructive jaundice. The presence of bacteria in the biliary tract increases in the presence of biliary obstruction, particularly in the presence of foreign bodies like stones, but also in the presence of malignant obstruction secondary to pancreatic head carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma. Reflux of bacteria from the biliary tract to the systemic circulation is believed to be the primary etiologic factor in bacteraemia and the development of sepsis in cholangitis. Biliary tract obstruction is the initiating factor in the pathogenesis of acute cholangitis causing elevated intraluminal pressures, and subsequent infection of the normally sterile bile. Bacteria may infect bile retrogradely from the gut (through the ascending route), through the haematogenous route or via lymphatics. The presence of bacteria in the biliary tract (bactibilia) increases rapidly with the development of biliary obstruction, particularly in the presence of foreign bodies like stones. Biliary obstruction causes local and systemic changes in the host defenses. There is decreased bile passage into the small bowel and decreased secretory IgA from the gastrointestinal tract. This promotes changes in the gut bacterial flora which in turn cause loss of mucosal integrity, decreased endotoxin inactivation and bacterial overgrowth. These changes cause portal bacteremia, endotoxemia and increased translocation of endotoxins to the liver, resulting in sepsis and also decreasing the hepatic Kupffer cell function in these patients. In view of these pathophysiological changes, early biliary decompression is necessary to restore normal function of the Kupffer cells in the liver and thus prevent functional alterations in the liver because of chronic, long-standing obstruction and cholestasis. Early biliary decompression also decreases postoperative morbidity and mortality.[43] The increased expression of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells (TREM-1) in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of sepsis patients with acute cholangitis suggests an important role of TREM-1 in the development of acute cholangitis.[44, 45]
The predominant pathogens cultured from bile specimens in patients with obstructive jaundice (samples obtained at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage) were gram-negative bacteria (68%) followed by gram-positive bacteria (26%), anaerobes (3%) and Candida (3%).[46] The predominant gram-negative pathogens were
Patients undergoing ERCP tend to be at high risk of sepsis because of the underlying biliary obstruction which predisposes to cholangitis and because of the invasive nature of the procedure. The use of prophylactic antibiotics before ERCP is therefore recommended by all major international gastroenterological societies, especially in the presence of an obstructed biliary system.[48-50] The use of prophylactic antibiotics attempts to decrease or eliminate the incidence of cholangitis, sepsis and pancreatitis after the procedure.[48] During ERCP, bacteraemia is believed to occur because of the injection of contrast and the iatrogenic introduction of foreign substances in the bile of patients who already have underlying pathologies such as biliary obstruction or pancreatic pseudocysts. Bacteraemia during ERCP is relatively uncommon in patients who do not have evidence of biliary or pancreatic ductal obstruction.[49] Bacteraemia is however well recognised during ERCP for biliary obstruction with pancreatic or biliary infection occurring following 0.4–0.8% of endoscopic biliary procedures. These episodes must always be taken seriously because of the associated 8–20% mortality risk.[50] Biliary dilatation, the insertion of biliary stents, prolonged procedure time and hilar cholangiocarcinoma have been shown to give an increased risk of post-ERCP cholangitis.[51] The British Society of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have similar recommendations on the prophylactic use of antibiotics for ERCP.[52,53] Patients with ongoing cholangitis who will be needing therapeutic endoscopic intervention should always be on appropriate antimicrobial therapy upon admission to hospital. Additional pre-ERCP antimicrobial prophylaxis is not normally recommended for those who are already taking antibiotics therapeutically for cholangitis. Routine prophylaxis for ERCP is not usually necessary, unless it is not possible to adequately decompress the biliary system during the procedure, in which case a full antibiotic course is indicated until adequate drainage can be achieved. Indications for routine antibiotic prophylaxis during ERCP include specific biliary disorders, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or hilar cholangiocarcinoma (where complete biliary drainage will be difficult or impossible to achieve during one procedure), patients with a history of liver transplantation, patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, patients with severe neutropenia and / or advanced haematological malignancy. When antibiotic prophylaxis for ERCP is given, oral ciprofloxacin or intravenous gentamicin is usually recommended.
4. Inflammatory bowel disease and sepsis
Bacteria play an important role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), its complications and its symptoms. In IBD, antibiotics can decrease tissue invasion and eliminate aggressive bacterial species. Antibiotics are also used in IBD to treat infective complications and for altering bacterial flora, which may result in specific anti-inflammatory effects. The antibiotics which are used most frequently in IBD are metronidazole and ciprofloxacin, which may be effective in Crohn’s colitis and ileocolitis, perianal disease and pouchitis.[54]
The pathophysiology of both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) involves dysfunction of the intestinal barrier, which then causes leak flux diarrhoea and the facilitated uptake of noxious antigens into the systemic circulation. Barrier dysfunction in IBD involves a reduction in epithelial horizontal tight junctions (TJ) and an abnormal TJ protein expression. An increased incidence and frequency of apoptosis as well as erosions and ulcerations in the gastrointestinal mucosa can add to the leakiness of the gut. The dysfunction of the intestinal barrier occurs because of the increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines like Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha, Interferon gamma, Interleukin 1β, and Interleukin 13 in the chronically inflamed intestine. Chronic inflammation in IBD is believed to result from genetic polymorphisms which cause an inadequate immune response as well as changes in the intestinal microbiota. Probiotics may offer some benefit in IBD by stabilising the barrier function through TJ protein expression and distribution.[55] In CD, an increased presence of
Genetic polymorphisms play a major role in the aetiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Major advances in the aetiology of CD came from the discovery of polymorphisms in the NOD2 (nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain containing 2), autophagy-related susceptibility genes ATG16L1 (Autophagy-related 16-like gene) and IRGM (Immunity-Related Guanosine Triphosphate) in patients. The identification of the presence of adherent-invasive
On the other hand, ATG16L1 is a protein necessary for autophagosome formation once bacterial or parasitic components are introduced into cells. Gene polymorphisms resulting in dysregulated immune responses to invasive micro-organisms, including those in the NOD2 and ATG16L1 genes, facilitate microbial replication and loss of the functional integrity of the epithelial barrier with an increase in permeability. The access to sub-epithelial tissues by the invasive micro-organisms may cause local chronic inflammation and microbial dissemination which may result in systemic inflammatory responses. The associated impaired response of myeloid cells to this microbial insult also increases the risk of chronic, low grade infection and inflammation.
5. Pouchitis
Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis is the operation of choice for UC patients requiring surgery. It is also used for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Chronic pouchitis is an important long-term complication following ileal-pouch anal anstomosis, accounting for 10% of pouch failures and occurring in 50% of patients after pouch formation for UC. It is however rarely seen in FAP, suggesting that pouchitis tends to occur because of the inflammatory process occurring in UC. Antibiotics are effective in reducing the symptoms of pouchitis, implicating bacteria in its development.[68] Studies have revealed that patients with pouchitis have different bacterial families (Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridiaceae) from patients with normal pouches (Ruminococcaceae, Bifidobacteriaceae).[69] Bacterial species in pouchitis are important because of the benefit that some probiotics have been shown to offer to these patients, as indicated in the next section.
6. Immunosuppressants in IBD
The increased risk of sepsis and bacteraemia in IBD patients has already been established. The treatment of IBD frequently involves the use of potent immunosuppressing agents including steroids, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate and biological drugs including infliximab and adalimumab. Potential complications with the use of these agents in IBD patients include sepsis. A recent meta-analysis which reviewed early post-operative infectious complications in UC patients undergoing colectomy showed no significant difference in the rate of infectious complications between patients who were treated with infliximab and those who were not.[70] In an analysis of serious infections (defined as infections requiring hospital admission) among 489 IBD patients receiving anti-TNFα therapy across Australia and New Zealand, only 14 (2.2%) serious infections were reported. These infections included 3 cases of Varicella Zoster, 2 cases of
Reports of severe sepsis in patients with IBD while taking Azathioprine have also been described.[80,81] Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine are used in patients with moderate to severe CD or UC. Azathioprine has a complex, heterogeneous thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) metabolism which may affect required dosages and may increase the risk for adverse events. Routine TPMT activity testing before starting Azathioprine may decrease the risk of early leukopenia and avoid potentially life-threatening myelotoxicity.[82] The risk of severe sepsis increases further if combination immunosuppressants (such as combinations of azathioprine and anti-TNFα agents) are used.[83] The TREAT registry showed that while unadjusted analysis indicated that Infliximab is associated with an increased risk of infection, multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that Infliximab was not an independent predictor of serious infections and the increased risk was associated with disease severity and concomitant prednisone use.[84] The REACH study, evaluating the efficacy of Infliximab in children with moderate to severe CD refractory to immunomodulatory treatment, reported serious infections as the major adverse events with their frequency being higher with shorter treatment intervals. The combination of immunosuppressive medications appears to increase the risk of opportunistic infections.[85]
7. Streptococcus gallolyticus and colorectal tumours
S. infantarius S. infantarius subsp. coli | S. lutetiensis | |
S. pasteurianus S. macedonicus | S. gallolyticus subsp. macedonicus |
7.1. Virulence factors and possible carcinogenic effect of S. gallolyticus
Boleij et al [92] reconstructed the route of infection in vitro on a continuous cell line of heterogenous human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cells that can be synthesized into a monolayer and which simulate the intestinal epithelium. Cellular immune responses upon infection and bacterial biofilm formation were analysed. The
7.2. Association with liver disease and extracolonic malignancy
8. Conclusion
A considerable body of evidence links colonic neoplasms with
8.1. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract
In critical illness, sepsis plays a major role in morbidity and mortality. Bacterial translocation from the gut is believed to occur following loss of the barrier function of the intestinal mucosa. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) involves the use of local and systemic antimicrobial agents to clear potentially pathogenic organisms from the gastrointestinal tract, especially Gram negative organisms,
SDD involves the combination of orally administered non-absorbed antibiotic and antifungal agents with an intravenous broad spectrum antibiotic. A regimen that has been used in several major studies consists of orally administered amphotericin-B, tobramycin and colistin.[97,98] Along with the topical agents, intravenous cefotaxime is also given for the first four days of ICU stay. The systemic antibiotics should cover both community-acquired organisms and hospital-acquired organisms while having minimal influence on the normal bowel flora and good penetration to bronchial secretions, making cefotaxime an ideal candidate.[99] The enteral non-absorbable antibiotics are intended to prevent secondary endogenous infections but they fail to cover resistant organisms such as MRSA. Silvestri et al [100] have added oral vancomycin to Polymyxin E, tobramycin and amphotericin B in an attempt to decrease the incidence of MRSA ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP). This combination was effective in reducing the incidence of VAP and secondary carriage of MRSA with no reported cases of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci or vancomycin-intermediate
8.2. The evidence on SDD
Many randomised controlled trials (RCT) have been performed over the last decade studying the benefits and risks of SDD. An important recent RCT studied the effect of SDD and SOD on 28-day mortality in ICU patients.[97] 5939 patients in 13 different ICUs in the Netherlands were enrolled to receive either standard care, SDD or SOD. SDD included the application of topical tobramycin, colistin and amphotericin B to the oropharynx and stomach along with the intravenous administration of cefotaxime for the first four days of ICU stay. 28-day mortality was marginally reduced from 27.5% in patients treated with standard care to 26.6% and 26.9% in the SDD and SOD groups respectively. Another RCT looked at the role of oropharyngeal and intestinal colonisation with gram-negative bacteria as a source of ICU-acquired bacteraemia.[102] This trial randomised a total of 6778 ICU patients to receive SDD, SOD or standard care. The outcomes measured included the incidence densities (episodes per 1000 ICU patient days) of ICU-acquired gram-negative bacteraemia and rectal colonisation with gram-negative bacteria. SOD gave a 33% reduction while SDD gave a 45% reduction in the incidence of Gram-ve bacteraemia.
In another study [103], 107 patients with more than 20% burns and/or suspected inhalation injury were randomised to receive SDD or placebo and mortality rates and incidence of pneumonias were measured. A similar antibiotic regimen to the one used in [97] was used but topical polymixin E substituted colistin. Results showed an ICU mortality of 27.8% in the placebo arm compared to 9.4% in the SDD arm. Rates of pneumonia were 30.8 and 17.0 per 1000 ventilator-days in the placebo and the SDD arms respectively. The authors also noted that MRSA infection was commoner in the SDD group amounting to 26.4% versus 20% in the placebo group. Various other trials have been summed up by three major meta-analyses (Table 2).[104-106]
Name and year of meta-analysis | Number of trials/number of patients | Clinical end points studied | Results | Conclusions |
Silvestri et al 2007 [106] | 51 trials 8065 patients | BSI Causative organisms Total mortality | Significantly reduced in SDD group OR 0.73 Significantly reduced G- BSI without increasing G+ BSI Reduced in SDD group | NNT to prevent 1 G- BSI is 20 NNT to prevent one death is 22 |
Silvestri et al 2008 [105] | 54 trials 9473 patients | Carriage of G- bacteria Carriage of G+ bacteria G- RTI G- BSI | Significantly reduced Not significantly changed Significantly reduced Significantly reduced | SDD mainly targets G- bacteria and does not show a significant increase in G+ bacterial infections. SDD was better than SOD at reducing carriage of and severe infections due to G- bacteria |
Liberati et al 2009 [104] | 36 trials 6914 patients | Rate of RTI Mortality | Significantly reduced in both SOD and SDD groups Significantly reduced in SDD but not in SOD | SOD alone reduces RTI but not mortality while SDD reduces both |
8.3. Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)
Pneumonia is a major cause of mortality in critically ill and ventilated patients. The incidence of VAP in different studies ranges between 7 and 40% while mortality ranges from 25 to 50%.[107] In an important meta-analysis carried out by Liberati et al [104], 36 RCTs studying the effects of different combinations of SDD and SOD in ICU patients on the incidence of VAP were analysed. This showed that in trials comparing combined topical and systemic antibiotics to controls, there was a significant reduction in both VAP and mortality in the treated group. In trials comparing topical antibiotics to controls, a significant reduction in VAP (but not in total mortality) was shown.[108] Methicillin-Resistant
8.4. Evidence supporting use in surgical patients
Roos et al [109] studied the incidence of infections and anastomotic leakage 30 days following surgery in 289 patients receiving either topical SDD or placebo. Results show that 19.6% of the SDD group had infectious complications when compared to 30.8% in the placebo group. Anastomotic leakage was also reduced in the SDD group (6.3% vs 15.1%). In spite of this, there was no significant difference in mortality or hospital stay between the two groups. Melsen et al [110] compared the benefits of SOD and SDD in surgical and medical ICU patients. 2762 surgical and 3165 non surgical patients were randomised to receive SDD, SOD or standard care. Compared with standard care, mortality was comparable in SDD treated surgical and non surgical patients though the duration of ventilation, ICU and hospital stay were significantly reduced in the surgical patients. SOD failed to reduce mortality when compared to standard treatment in the surgical cohort while providing a reduced mortality by 16.6% in non-surgical patients. Patients undergoing liver transplant are very vulnerable to infection during the early post-operative period, particularly with gram-negative organisms. SDD has been studied in these patients in several RCTs [111-113] and meta-analyses [114]. The results have been conflicting and several small RCTs failed to show any benefit of SDD over standard care following liver transplant.
9. Conclusion and recommendations
The evidence so far shows a decrease in 28 day mortality and reduction in bacteraemia in high risk patients and suggests that SDD should be regularly used in ICU settings. However SDD is still not common practice in most ICUs as many intensivists still question its safety and efficacy. In a UK based survey of ICUs to document the use of SDD [106], 95% of British centres did not use SDD, mainly because of concerns regarding resistance. In addition there is a reluctance to use intravenous antibiotics in many of those who used SDD in intubated patients. Convincing the medical world of the effectiveness and safety of SDD will require more robust data about antibiotic resistance with SDD and SOD.
9.1. Clostridium difficile infection
Toxin synthesis by
9.2. Epidemiology
The emergence of
9.3. Risk factors for CDAD
Antibiotic use is the strongest factor associated with CDAD. The most important mechanism involves the disruption of normal colonic commensal bacterial populations providing a niche for
9.4. Diagnosis and investigations
In most cases of suspected CDAD, the clinical presentation and microbiological evidence of toxin-producing
Physical findings | Blood investigations | Imaging studies |
Fever, rigors, haemodynamic instability (including vasodilatory or septic shock), signs of peritonitis, (including decreased bowel sounds, abdominal tenderness, rebound tenderness and guarding), signs of ileus (including vomiting and absent passage of stool). Admixture of blood with stools is rare in CDI and the correlation with severity of disease is uncertain | marked leukocytosis (leukocyte count "/> 15 X 109/L) marked left shift (band neutrophils "/>20% of leukocytes) rise in serum creatinine ("/>50% above the baseline) elevated serum lactate distension of large intestine | colonic wall thickening including low-attenuation mural thickening pericolonic fat stranding ascites not explained by other causes The correlation of haustral or mucosal thickening, including thumbprinting, pseudopolyps and plaques with severity of disease is unclear. |
9.5. Treatment
The management of CDAD is tailored to the severity of the condition. The treatment recommended by the ESCMID guidelines (2009) [129] is summarised in Table 4.
Degree of severity | Mild (stool frequency <4 times daily, no signs of colitis) | Moderate (no markers of severe disease) | Severe (any marker of severe disease) |
Stop antibiotics and observe closely | Metronidazole 500 mg tds orally for 10 days | Vancomycin 125 mg qds orally for 10 days (A-I) | |
Metronidazole 500 mg tds intravenously for 10 days (A-III) | Metronidazole 500 mg tds intravenously for 10 days (A-III) + intracolonic vancomycin 500 mg in 100 mL of normal saline every 4–12 h (C-III) and/or vancomycin 500 mg qds by nasogastric tube (C-III) |
Oral vancomycin may be replaced by teicoplanin 100mg twice daily. Other antibiotics have been shown to be effective in CDAD but are not as yet recommended for routine use. In a phase 3 clinical trial [131], fidaxomycin had a better response rate and a lower recurrence rate than standard dose vancomycin. Oral rifaximin was studied on comparatively smaller numbers. Neff et al [132] report three liver transplant patients with moderately severe CDAD who had relapsed after treatment with metronidazole and did not tolerate vancomycin. All three showed a good response after 28 days of rifaximin 400mg three times daily. In another small study [133], there was only one recurrence after treatment of 8 patients with rifaximin for ten days. If severe disease does not respond to medical therapy, surgical intervention may be necessary. Indications for colectomy include perforation of the colon and systemic inflammation with deteriorating clinical condition not responding to antibiotic therapy. This includes the clinical diagnoses of toxic megacolon and severe ileus. Colectomy should preferably be performed before colitis is very severe. Serum lactate may serve as a marker of severity with surgery ideally performed before lactate exceeds 5.0mmol/L.[127]
9.6. Recurrence and the role of fecal transplant
Recurrence of infection is defined as the recurrence of symptoms due to incomplete clearance of the initial infection. 15-30% of patients with CDAD experience recurrent infections in spite of seemingly adequate treatment.[134] Various combinations of antibiotics (Table 5) have been suggested for the management of recurrent infections as well as measures to normalise the intestinal flora using probiotics or fecal transplantation. Healthy donor fecal installation has been proposed as a way to restore normal bowel flora in patients with CDAD recurrence not responding to antibiotics. Several studies have been performed to date with most showing favourable results [135] but the lack of well designed RCTs makes the evidence weak and more studies are needed before it can be formally recommended in the guidelines.
First recurrence | Second recurrence | Third recurrence |
Prolonged vancomycin orally in tapered and pulsed doses, for example: 125 mg four times daily for 14 days 125 mg twice daily for seven days 125 mg once daily for seven days 125 mg once every two days for eight days (four doses) 125 mg once every three days for 15 days (five doses) | Vancomycin at a dose of 125 mg orally four times daily for 14 days, combined with any of the other options for recurrent infection (not evidence based): Intravenous immunoglobulin at a dose of 400 mg per kg body weight once every three weeks, for a total of two or three doses depending on effect. Vancomycin, followed by rifampicin at a dose of 400 mg twice daily for 14 days Healthy donor fecal implantation |
10. Conclusion
International guidelines [136] have issued a list of evidence-based infection control measures intended to contain outbreaks of CDI within hospitals. Measures include the strict use of hand hygiene using soap and water, the use of gloves and gowns when approaching an infected patient, isolation of infected patients in single rooms and maintaining contact precautions for the duration of diarrhoea. Routine identification and treatment of carriers is not recommended. Identification of potential sources of infection, such as rectal thermometers, can help reduce the incidence of CDAD. Frequent use of chlorine-containing cleaning agents to disinfect the clinical area along with routine environmental screening for
10.1. Probiotics
The term
Probiotics have been around for decades and are available in different formulations including capsules, powders and fermented milk products. However, evidence of their benefit has been relatively scarce until recently as most studies were hampered by poor standardisation in view of the different species and strains used. Species used vary widely as do the number of viable organisms and their resistance to gastric acid. Some examples of commercially available probiotics are: Erceflora (
10.2. Infectious diarrhoea
Infectious diarrhoea is a major cause of morbidity and mortality especially in third world countries. Most studies with probiotics analysing the effect on diarrhoea duration have been in paediatric patients and they show a significant benefit. In a meta-analysis [139] of 63 studies of which 56 involved infants and young children, there was a significant decrease in the mean duration of diarrhoea (mean difference 24.76 hours; n=4555, trials=35), diarrhoea lasting ≥4 days (risk ratio 0.41; n=2853, trials=29) and stool frequency on day 2 (mean difference 0.80; n=2751, trials=20). However, there was a wide variation in the probiotics used, patient characteristics and clinical settings. When probiotics are used in conjunction with rehydration therapy they appear to be safe and have clear benefits in shortening the duration of diarrhoea and reducing stool frequency in acute infectious diarrhoea.
4 randomised controlled trials (n=464) comparing specified probiotic agents with placebo or no treatment in children with persistent diarrhoea (diarrhoea lasting more than 14 days) [140] showed that probiotics reduced the duration of persistent diarrhoea by a mean of 4.2 days and significantly reduced stool frequency at day 5. In a randomised controlled trial that randomised 88 children younger than two years old with acute diarrhoea to receive
10.3. Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and Clostridium difficile -associated disease
Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) occurs in about 25% of patients receiving antibiotics, with rates varying between different populations and according to the type of antibiotic used.[144]
Several meta-analysis have highlighted the positive effects of probiotics on AAD. In [146], 8 RCTs (n=1220) evaluating the effectiveness of probiotics in preventing AAD and CDAD were analysed. Probiotics used included
10.4. Probiotics in IBD
Probiotics alter the microbial concentrations of the intestines and may also be used to deliver microbial metabolic products which affect intestinal mucosal inflammation in IBD. There is little evidence of benefit with currently available probiotics in CD though newer probiotics composed of other micro-organisms may prove beneficial in the future. On the other hand, studies have shown a benefit of probiotics in recurrent and relapsing antibiotic sensitive pouchitis and in mild UC. In fact, recent practice guidelines [148] on the management of pouchitis suggest that in patients with prompt recurrence of pouchitis following antibiotic cessation, and in those with multiple recurrences of pouchitis despite antibiotics, either VSL#3TM or chronic use of antibiotics may be helpful. These guidelines however do not recommend probiotics in the acute treatment of pouchitis.[148]
Probiotics may prevent relapse in chronic pouchitis and ulcerative colitis, and may also prevent the development of pouchitis postoperatively. However, further studies are needed to identify optimal dosing, duration of therapy, delivery methods and whether blends of different strains of probiotics are superior to single strains.[149] Following a systematic review of studies using VSL#3TM,
The risks of probiotic use are generally low, but cases of fungaemia in ICU patients on
10.5. Mortality of preterm infants with necrotising enterocolitis
Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm and very low birth weight (<1500g) infants. There is strong evidence [165-167] that the administration of enteral probiotics plays an important role in establishing benign commensal flora and preventing NEC and its complications. In these studies, the most commonly used species were
10.6. Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a heterogeneous group of disorders characterised by functional bowel symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating and changes in bowel habit in the absence of other pathologies which might explain these symptoms. IBS is typically difficult to treat as its aetiology is still poorly understood. Targeting the intestinal flora with probiotics has been an attractive potential treatment and has shown some promise in several meta-analyses.[170-174] These studies showed a modest improvement in the patients’ symptoms when using strains like
11. Conclusion
The emergence of probiotics as a popular type of alternative medicine has preceded by several decades their promotion as an evidence-based treatment. Their role in treatment or prevention for several important conditions namely NEC, UC, pouchitis and AAD is expected to fuel further research as many unanswered questions still remain. In spite of many large trials the data is still relatively weak to allow specific recommendations on which probiotics to prescribe in specific conditions. Optimum dose recommendations also remain to be clarified.
References
- 1.
Gorbach SL. Microbiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Medical Microbiology1996 PMID: 21413258 - 2.
Puleo F. Arvanitakis M. Van Gossum A. Preiser J. C. Gut failure in the ICU Semin Respir Crit Care Med.2011 Oct;32 5 626 38 - 3.
Schuppan D. Afdhal N. H. Liver Cirrhosis. Lancet 2008 march 8;371 9615 838 851 - 4.
Digestive diseases in the United States: Epidemiology and Impact. NIDDK; Bethesda, MD:1994 NIH Publication94-1447 94 1447 - 5.
Bacteraemia in patients with liver cirrhosis. Rev Chilena Infectol.Munita S. Araos B. Perez G. Alvarez V. Canals C. Conteras B. et al. 2011 Feb;28 1 35 9 - 6.
Infections in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. B aires).Mathurin S. Chapelet A. Spanevello V. Sayago G. Balparda C. Virga E. et al. 2009 69 2 229 38 - 7.
Cazzaniga M. Dionigi E. Gobbo G. Fioretti A. Monti V. Salerno F. The systemic inflammatory response syndrome in cirrhotic patients: relationship with their in-hospital outcome J Hepatol.2009 Sep;51 3 475 82 - 8.
Steed H. Macfarlane G. Blackett K. Macfarlene S. Miller M. Bahrami B. et al. Bacterial translocation in cirrhosis is not caused by an abnormal small bowel gut microbiota FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol.2011 Dec;63 3 346 54 - 9.
Montes-de-Oca M. MJ Blanco Marquez. M. MJ Soto-Gutierrez Fernandez. Rodriguez-Ramos C. et C. al Haemodynamic derangement in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis: the role of bacterial translocation Liver Int.2011 Jul;31 6 850 8 - 10.
Susceptibility to gut leakiness: a possible mechanism for endotoxaemia in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Liver Int.Farhadi A. Gundlapalli S. Shaikh M. Frantzides C. Harrell L. Kwasny M. et al. 2008 Aug;28 7 1026 33 - 11.
Liver Int.Bruns T. Peter J. Reuken P. Grabe D. Schuldes S. Brenmoehl J. et al. N. O. D. gene variants. are a. risk factor. for culture-positive. spontaneous bacterial. peritonitis monomicrobial bacterascites. in cirrhosis. 2011 Jun 13. - 12.
Chronic liver disease impairs bacterial clearance in a human model of induced bacteraemia. Clin Transl Sci.Ashare A. Stanford C. Hancock P. Stark D. Lilli K. Birrer E. et al. 2009 Jun;2 3 199 205 - 13.
Lim L. Tan X. Woo S. Dan Y. Lee Y. Lai V. et al. Risk factors for mortality in cirrhotic patients with sepsis Hepatol Int.2011 Sep;5 3 800 7 - 14.
Usefulness of C-Reactive Protein for Evaluating Clinical outcomes in Cirrhotic Patients with Bacteraemia. Korean J Intern Med.Ha Y. Kang C. Joo E. Joung M. Chung D. Peck K. et al. 2011 June;26 2 195 200 - 15.
Liver cirrhosis as a risk factor for mortality in a national cohort of patients with bacteraemia.J Infect.Kang C. Song J. Chung D. Peck K. Yeom J. Ki H. et al. 2011 Nov;63 5 336 43 - 16.
Arvaniti V. D’Amico G. Fede G. Manousou P. Tsochatzis E. Pleguezuelo M. et al. Infections in patients with cirrhosis increase mortality four-fold and should be used in determining prognosis 2010 Oct;139 4 1246 56 - 17.
Wong F, Bernardi M, Balk R, Christman B, Moreau R, Garcia-Tsao G, et al; International Ascites Club. Sepsis in cirrhosis: report on the 7th meeting of the International Ascites Club. Gut 2005;54:718-725. - 18.
Koulaouzidis A. Bhat S. Saeed A. Spontaneous bacterial. peritonitis World. J. Gastroenterol 2009 Mar 7;15 9 1042 1049 - 19.
Rimola A, Gracia-Tsao G, Navasa M, Piddock L, Planas R, Bernard B, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a consensus document. International Ascites Club. J Hepatol 2000;32:142-153 - 20.
The effects of cefazolin on cirrhotic patients with acute variceal haemorrhage after endoscopic interventions. Surg Endosc.Xu H. Wang J. Tsai M. Wu K. Chiou S. Changchien C. et al. 2011 Sep;25 9 2911 8 - 21.
EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. Journal of Hepatology2010 53 397 417 - 22.
Fasolato S. Angeli P. Dallagnese L. Maresio G. Zola E. Mazza E. et al. Renal failure and bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis: epidemiology and clinical features. Hepatology2007 45 223 229 - 23.
Hou M. Lin H. Liu T. Kuo B. Lee F. Chang F. Lee S. Antibiotic prophylaxis after endoscopic therapy prevents rebleeding in acute variceal hemorrhage: a randomized trial. Hepatology2004 39 746 753 - 24.
Vivas S. Rodríguez M. Palacio M. Linares A. Alonso J. Rodrigo L. Presence of bacterial infection in bleeding cirrhotic patients is independently associated with early mortality and failure to control bleeding Dig Dis Sci2001 46 2752 2757 - 25.
Carbonell N. Pauwels A. Serfaty L. Fourdan O. Lévy V. Poupon R. Improved survival after variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis over the past two decades. Hepatology2004 40 652 659 - 26.
Rimola A, Bory F, Teres J, Pérez-Ayuso R, Arroyo V, Rodés J. Oral, nonabsorbable antibiotics prevent infection in cirrhotics with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Hepatology 1985;5:463-467. - 27.
Soriano G. Guarner C. Tomas A. Villanueva C. Torras X. González D. et al. Norfloxacin prevents bacterial infection in cirrhotics with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. 1992 103 1267 1272 - 28.
Blaise M. Pateron D. Trinchet J. Levacher S. Beaugrand M. Porriat J. Systemic antibiotic therapy prevents bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Hepatology1994 20 34 38 - 29.
Pauwels A. Mostefa-Kara N. Debenes B. Degoutte E. Levy V. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis after gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with a high risk of infection. Hepatology1996 24 802 806 - 30.
Hsieh W. Lin H. Hwang S. Hou M. Lee F. Chang F. Lee S. The effect of ciprofloxacin in the prevention of bacterial infection in patients with cirrhosis after upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol1998 93 962 966 - 31.
Dupeyron C. Mangeney N. Sedrati L. Campillo B. Fouet P. Leluan G. Rapid emergence of quinolone resistance in cirrhotic patients treated with norfloxacin to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1994 38 340 344 - 32.
Aparicio J. Such J. Pascual S. Arroyo A. Plazas J. Girona E. et al. Development of quinolone-resistant strains of Escherichia coli in stools of patients with cirrhosis undergoing norfloxacin prophylaxis: clinical consequences. J Hepatol1999 31 277 283 - 33.
Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage. GastroenterologyFernández J. Ruiz del Arbol. L. Gómez C. Durandez R. Serradilla R. Guarner C. et al. 2006 131 1049 1056 - 34.
Prognostic value of arterial pressure, endogenous vasoactive systems and renal function in cirrhotic patients admitted to the hospital for the treatment of ascites. GastroenterologyLlach J. Ginès P. Arroyo V. Rimola A. Titó L. Badalamenti S. et al. 1988 94 482 487 - 35.
Risk of a first community-acquired spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotics with low ascitic fluid protein levels. GastroenterologyGuarner C. Solà R. Soriano G. Andreu M. Novella M. Vila C. et al. 1999 117 414 419 - 36.
Fernández J. Navasa M. Planas R. Montoliu S. Monfort D. Soriano G. et al. Primary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis delays hepatorenal syndrome and improves survival in cirrhosis 2007 133 818 824 - 37.
Terg R. Fassio E. Guevara M. Cartier M. Longo C. Lucero R. et al. Ciprofloxacin in primary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled study J Hepatol2008 48 774 779 - 38.
Norfloxacin prevents spontaneous bacterial peritonitis recurrence in cirrhosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. HepatologyGinès P. Rimola A. Planas R. Vargas V. Marco F. Almela M. et al. 1990 12 716 724 - 39.
Runyon B. AASLD Practice Guidelines: Management of Adult Patients with Ascites Due to Cirrhosis: An Update. Hepatology. Jun 2009; 49(6): 2098-2103. - 40.
GutMoore K. Aithal G. B. S. G. Guidelines Guidelines. on the. management of. ascites in. cirrhosis 2006 1 12 - 41.
Morelli A, Ertmer C, Pietropaoli P, Westphal M. Terlipressin: a promising vasoactive agent in haemodynamic support of septic shock. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009 Oct;10(15):2569-75. - 42.
Saner F, Canbay A, Gerken G, Broelsch C. Pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety of terlipressin in esophageal varices bleeding, septic shock and hepatorenal syndrome. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Dec;1(2):207-17. - 43.
Navaneethan U. Jayanthi V. Mohan P. Pathogenesis of cholangitis in obstructive jaundice-revisited. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol.2011 Mar;57 1 97 104 - 44.
Liao R. Liu Z. Wei S. Xu F. Chen Z. Gong J. Triggering receptor in myeloid cells (TREM-1) specific expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of sepsis patients with acute cholangitis 2009 Jun;32 3 182 90 - 45.
Expression of human triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis. Nan Fang Yi Ked a Xue Xue Bao.Miao Y. Liu Z. Gong J. Wei S. Xu F. Chen Z. 2009 Nov;29 11 2179 81 - 46.
Karpel E. Madej A. Buldak L. Dulawa-Buldak A. Nowakowska-Dulawa E. Labuzek K. et al. Bile bacterial flora and its in vitro resistance pattern in patients with acute cholangitis resulting from choledocholithiasis Scand J Gastroenterol.2011 Jul;46(7-8):925 EOF 930 EOF - 47.
Melzer M. Toner R. Lacey S. Bettany E. Rait G. Biliary tract infection and bacteraemia: presentation, structural abnormalities, causative organisms and clinical outcomes Postgrad Med J.2007 Dec;83 986 773 776 - 48.
Brand M. Bizos D. O’Farrell P. Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2010 Oct 6;(10):CD007345. - 49.
Nelson DB. Infectious disease complications of GI endoscopy: Part 1: endogenous infections. Gastrointest Endosc2003 57 546 56 - 50.
Alveyn CG. Antimicrobial prophylaxis during biliary endoscopic procedures. J Antimicrob Chemother1993 Suppl B):101 5 - 51.
Ertugrul I. Yuksel I. Parlak E. Cicek E. Ataseven H. Basar O. et al. Risk factors for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related cholangitis: A prospective study Turk J Gastroenterol2009 Jun;20 2 116 121 - 52.
GutAllison M. Sandoe J. Tighe R. Simpson I. Hall R. Elliott T. B. S. G. Guidelines Antibiotic. prophylaxis in. gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2009 58 869 880 - 53.
ASGE Guidelines: Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc2008 67 6 791 8 - 54.
Hammer H. Gut microbiota and inflammatory bowel disease Dig Dis2011 29 6 550 3 - 55.
Hering N. Fromm M. Schulzke J. Determinants of colonic barrier function in inflammatory bowel disease and potential therapeutics. J Physiol.2012 Mar 1;590(Pt 5):1035 EOF 44 EOF - 56.
Guslandi M. Rifaximin in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease World J Gastroenterol. 200 Nov;17 42 4644 46 - 57.
Man S. Zhang L. Day A. Leach S. Lemberg D. Mitchell H. Campylobacter concisus and other Campylobacter species in children with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease Inflamm Bowel Dis.2010 16 1008 1016 - 58.
Schwiertz A. Jacobi M. Frick J. Richter M. Rusch K. Köhler H. Microbiota in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease J Pediatr.2010 157 240 244 e1. - 59.
Sokol H. Pigneur B. Watterlot L. Lakhdari O. Bermúdez-Humarán L. Gratadoux J. et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is an anti-inflammatory commensal bacterium identified by gut microbiota analysis of Crohn disease patients Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.2008 105 16731 16736 - 60.
Ohkusa T. Okayasu I. Ogihara T. Morita K. Ogawa M. Sato N. Induction of experimental ulcerative colitis by Fusobacterium varium isolated from colonic mucosa of patients with ulcerative colitis Gut.2003 52 79 83 - 61.
Naser S. Ghobrial G. Romero C. Valentine J. Culture of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis from the blood of patients with Crohn’s disease Lancet.2004 Sep 18-24;364 9439 1039 44 - 62.
Benjamin J. Hedin C. Koutsoumpas A. Ng S. Mc Carthy N. Presctt N. et al. Smokers with active Crohn’s disease have a clinically relevant dysbiosis of the gastrointestinal microbiota Inflamm Bowel Dis2011 Aug 29. [Epub ahead of print] - 63.
Cyclic neutropoenia in Crohn’s ileocolitis: efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. J Clin Gastroenterol.Fata F. Myers P. Addeo J. Grinberg M. Nawabi I. Cappell M. 1997 Jun;24 4 253 6 - 64.
Aguas M. Bastida G. Nos P. Beltran B. Grueso J. Grueso J. Septic thrombophlebitis of the superior mesenteric vein and multiple liver abscesses in a patient with Crohn’s disease at onset BMC Gastroenterol.2007 - 65.
An increased incidence of bacterial endocarditis in inflammatory bowel disease. Z Gastroenterol.Kreuzpaintner G. Horstkotte D. Losse B. Strhmeyer G. 1992 Jun;30 6 397 402 - 66.
Caprilli R. Lapaquette P. Darfeuille-Michaud A. Eating the enemy in Crohn’s disease: An old theory revisited JCC Oct2010 377 383 - 67.
Biswas A, Petnicki-Ocwieja T, Kobayashi K. Nod2: a key regulator linking microbiota to intestinal mucosal immunity. J Mol Med (Berl). 2012 Jan;90(1):15-24. - 68.
Landy J, Al-Hassi H, McLaughlin S, Knight S, Ciclitra P, Nicholls R, et al. Etiology of pouchitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011 Oct 21. - 69.
Tannock G. Lawley B. Munro K. Lay C. Taylor C. Daynes C. et al. Comprehensive analysis of the bacterial contents of stool from patients with chronic pouchitis, normal pouches, or familial adenomatous polyposis pouches Inflamm Bowel Dis.2011 Nov.[Epub ahead of print] - 70.
Ehteshami-Afshar S, Nikfar S, Rezaie A, Abdollahi M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of infliximab on the rate of colectomy and post-operative complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Arch Med Sci. 2011 Dec;7(6):1000-1012. - 71.
Serious infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving anti-tumor-necrosis-factor-alpha therapy: an Australian and New Zealand experience. J Gastroenterol Hepatol.Lawrence I. Radford-Smith G. Bampton P. Andrews J. Tan P. Croft A. et al. 2010 Nov;25 11 1732 8 - 72.
16 2109 2116 Hamzaoglu H, Cooper J, Alsahli M, Falchuk K, Peppercorn M, Farrell R. Safety of infliximab in Crohn’s disease: A large single-center experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 16:2109-2116 - 73.
Williams G. Khan A. Schweiger F. Listeria meningitis complicating infliximab treatment for Crohn’s disease. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol.2005 Sep;16 5 289 92 - 74.
Bassetti M. Nicco E. Delfino E. Viscoli C. Disseminated Salmonella paratyphi infection in a rheumatoid arthritis patient treated with infliximab Clin Microbiol Infect.2010 Jan;16 1 84 5 - 75.
Krishnamurthy R. Dincer H. Whittemore D. Strongyloides stercoralis hyperinfection in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis after anti-TNF-alpha therapy. J Clin Rheumatol.2007 Jun;13 3 150 2 - 76.
Life threatening intra-abdominal sepsis in patients on anti-TNF-α therapy. Gut.Goode S. Tierney G. Deighton C. 2006 Apr;55 4 590 591 - 77.
Zimmer C. Beiderlinden M. Peters J. Lethal acute respiratory distress syndrome during anti-TNF-alpha therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol.2006 May;25 3 430 2 - 78.
Infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease: clinical outcome in a population based cohort from Stockholm County. GutLjung T. Karlen P. Schmidt D. Hellström P. Lapidus A. Janczewska I. et al. 2004 53 849 53 - 79.
The safety profile of infliximab in patients with Crohn’s disease: the Mayo clinic experience in 500 patients. GastroenterologyColombel J. Loftus E. Tremaine W. Egan L. Harmsen W. Schleck C. et al. 2004 126 19 31 - 80.
Bacillus cereus bacteraemia in Crohn’s disease with multiple ileal stricture on maintenance azathioprine therapy. Nihom Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi.Hizawa K. Nagata Y. Taniguchi M. Nakamori M. Matsumoto T. Iida M. 2009 Jan;106 1 56 60 - 81.
Severe disseminated tuberculosis in a patient on immunosuppressive treatment. Report of one case. Rev Med Chil.Silva R. Jara J. Soto T. Sepulveda P. 2011 Jun;139 6 774 8 - 82.
Levesque B. Loftus E. Initiating Azathioprine for Crohn’s Disease Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.2012 Feb 10. [Epub ahead of print] - 83.
Marehbian J. Arrighi H. Hass S. Tian H. Sandborn W. Adverse events associated with common therapy regimens for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease Am J Gastroenterol.2009 Oct;104 10 2524 33 - 84.
Lichtenstein G. Feagan B. Cohen R. Salzberg B. Diamond R. Chen D. et al. Serious infections and mortality in association with therapies for Crohn’s disease: TREAT registry Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.2006 May;4 5 621 30 - 85.
Espghan ibd porto group commentary onVeereman-Wauters G. de Ridder L. Veres G. Kolacek S. Fell J. Malmborg P. et al. risk of infection and prevention in pediatric ibd patients. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. Epub ahead of print]2012 Feb - 86.
Schlegel L, Grimont F, Collins M, Regnault B, Grimont PA, Bouvet A. Streptococcus infantarius sp. nov., Streptococcus infantarius subsp. infantarius subsp. nov and Streptococcus infantariu subsp. coli subsp. Nov. Isolated from humans and food. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000;50:1425-1434. - 87.
Mc Coy W. Mason J. Enterococcal endocarditis associated with carcinoma of the sigmoid: report of a case. J Med Assoc State Ala.1951 21 162 166 - 88.
Boleij A. van Gelder M. Swinkels D. Tjalsma H. Clinical importance of Streptococcus gallolyticus infection among colorectal cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Infect Dis.2011 Nov;53 9 870 8 - 89.
Faecal carriage of Streptococcus bovis and colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterology.Dubrow R. Edberg S. Wikfors E. Callan D. Troncale F. Vender R. et al. 1991 Sep;101 3 721 5 - 90.
Prospective controlled study of the association of Streptococcus bovis with colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Pathol.Potter M. Cunliffe N. Smith M. Miles R. Flapan A. Dunlop M. 1998 Jun;51 6 473 4 - 91.
Burns C. Mc Caughey R. Lauter C. The association of Streptococcus bovis fecal carriage and colon neoplasia: possible relationship with polyps and their premalignant potential. Am J Gastroenterol.1985 Jan;80 1 423 6 - 92.
Boleij A. Muytjens C. Bukhari S. Cayet N. Glaser P. Hermans P. et al. Novel clues on the specific association of Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp gallolyticus with colorectal cancer J Infect Dis.2011 Apr 15;203 8 1101 9 - 93.
Tripodi M. Adinolfi L. Ragone E. Durante Mangoni. E. Fortunato R. Iarussi D. et al. Streptococcus bovis endocarditis and its association with chronic liver disease: an underestimated risk factor. Clin infect Dis2004 38 1394 1400 - 94.
The association of Streptococcus bovis bacteraemia and gastrointestinal diseases: a retrospective analysis. Dig Dis Sci.Alazmi W. Bustamante M. O’Loughlin C. Gonzalez J. Raskin J. 2006 Apr;51 4 732 6 - 95.
Association of Streptococcus bovis BacteremiaWith Colonic Neoplasia and Extracolonic Malignancy. Arch Surg JulyGold J. Bayar S. Salem R. 2004 2004 139 760 - 96.
Descriptive analysis of diseases associated with Streptococcus bovis bacteremia. Med Clin (Barc).Vergara-López S. de Alarcón A. Mateos-Gómez A. Georgieva R. González-Nieto J. Guerrero Sánchez. F. et al. 2011 Nov 12;137 12 527 32 - 97.
Decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynix in ICU patients. N Engl J Med.de Smet A. Kluytmans J. Cooper B. Mascini E. Benus R. van der Werf T. et al. 2009 360 1 20 31 - 98.
de Jonge E. Schultz M. Spanjaard L. Bossuyt P. Vroom M. Dankert J. et al. Effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled tr ial.2003 362 9389 1011 6 - 99.
Stoutenbeek C. The role of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in infection prevention in intensive care by SDD. 17 418 EOF 21 EOF - 100.
Silvestri L, van Saene H, Milanese M, Fontana F, Gregori D, Oblach L, Piacente N, Blazic M. Prevention of MRSA pneumonia by oral vancomycin decontamination: a randomised trial. Eur Respir J. 2004 Jun;23(6):921-6. - 101.
Bastin A. Ryanna K. Use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in United Kingdom intensive care units 2009 Jan;64 1 46 49 - 102.
The role of intestinal colonisation with gram-negative bacteria as a source for intensive care unit-acquired bacteraemia. Crit Care Med.Oostdijk E. de Smet A. Kesecioglu J. Dutch-S S. O. D. Trialists D. D. Group 2011 May;39 5 961 6 - 103.
Survival benefit in critically ill burned patients receiving selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Ann Surg.De La Cal M. Cerda E. Garcia-Hierro P. van Saene H. K. Gomez-Santos D. Negro E. et al. 2005 Mar;241 3 424 30 - 104.
Liberati A. D’Amico R. Pifferi S. Torri V. Brazzi L. Parmelli E. Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2009 Oct 7;4:CD0000022 - 105.
Silvestri L. van Saene H. Casarin A. Berlot G. Gullo A. Impact of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on carriage and infection due to gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Anaesth Intensive Care.2008 May;36 3 324 38 - 106.
Silvestri L. van Saene H. Milanese M. Gregori D. Gullo A. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduces bacterial bloodstream infection and mortality in critically ill patients. Systematic review of randomized, controlled trials Hosp infect.2007 Mar;65 3 187 203 - 107.
Safdar N. Said A. Lucey M. The role of selective digestive decontamination for reducing infection in patients undergoing liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver transpl.2004 Jul;10 7 817 27 - 108.
Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Hospital-acquired, Ventilator-associated, and Healthcare-associated Pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.2005 171 388 416 - 109.
Roos D. Dijksman L. Oudemans-van Straaten. H. de Wit L. Gouma D. Gerhards M. Randomized clinical trial of perioperative selective decontamination of the digestive tract versus placebo in elective gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg.2011 Oct;98 10 1365 72 - 110.
Selective decontamination of the oral and digestive tract in surgical versus non-surgical patients in intensive care in a cluster-randomized trial. Br J Surg.Melsen W. de Smet A. Kluytmans J. Bonten M. Dutch-S S. O. D. Trialists’ D. D. Group 2012 Feb;99 2 232 7 - 111.
Zwaveling J. Maring J. Klompmaker I. Haagsma E. Bottema J. Laseur M. et al. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract to prevent postoperative infection: a randomized placebo-controlled trial in liver transplant patients. Crit Care Med.2002 Jun;30 6 1204 9 - 112.
Selective bowel decontamination in elective liver transplantation: no improvement in endotoxaemia, initial graft function and post-operative morbidity. Transpl IntMaring J. Zwaveling J. Klompmaker I. van der Meer J. Slooff M. 2002 Jul;15 7 329 34 - 113.
Hellinger W. Yao J. Alvarez S. Blair J. Cawley J. Paya C. et al. A. randomized prospective. double-blinded evaluation. of selective. bowel decontamination. in liver. transplantation 2002 Jun 27;73 12 1904 9 - 114.
Safdar N. Said A. Lucey M. The role of selective digestive decontamination for reducing infection in patients undergoing liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Transpl.2004 Jul;10 7 817 27 - 115.
Ryan K. Ray C. 2004 Sherris Medical Microbiology (4th ed.). McGraw Hill;322 324 - 116.
Larson H. Price A. Honour P. Borriello S. Clostridium difficile and the aetiology of pseudomembranous colitis. 1978 1 1063 1066 - 117.
MedBartlett J. Clinical practice. Antibiotic-associated diarrhea. N. Engl J. 2002 346 334 349 - 118.
Wilcox M. Fawley W. Wigglesworth N. Parnell P. Verity P. Freeman J. Comparison of the effect of detergent versus hypochlorite cleaning on environmental contamination and incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect.2003 Jun;54 2 109 14 - 119.
Merrigan M. Venugopal A. Mallozzi M. Roxas B. Viswanathan V. Johnson S. et al. Human hypervirulent Clostridium difficile strains exhibit increased sporulation as well as robust toxin production 2010 Oct;192 19 4904 11 - 120.
Stabler R. Dawson L. Phua L. Wren B. Comparative analysis of BI/NAP1/027 hypervirulent strains reveals novel toxin B-encoding gene (tcdB) sequences J Med Microbiol.2008 Jun;57(Pt 6):771 EOF 775 EOF - 121.
O’Donoghue C. Kyne L. Update on Clostridium difficile infection. Curr Opin Gastroenterol.2011 Jan;27 1 38 47 - 122.
Johnson S. Samore M. Farrow K. Killgore G. Tenover F. Lyras D. et al. Epidemics of diarrhea caused by a clindamycin-resistant strain of Clostridium difficile in four hospitals. N Engl J Med.1999 1645 EOF 51 EOF - 123.
Pépin J. Saheb N. Coulombe M. Alary M. Corriveau M. Authier S. et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolones as the predominant risk factor for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a cohort study during an epidemic in Quebec. Clin Infect Dis.2005 1254 EOF 60 EOF - 124.
Spread and epidemiology of Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction ribotype 027/toxinotype III in The Netherlands. Clin Infect Dis.Goorhuis A. Van der Kooi T. Vaessen N. Dekker F. Van den Berg. R. Harmanus C. et al. 2007 - 125.
Pépin J. Saheb N. Coulombe M. Alary M. Corriveau M. Authier S. et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolones as the predominant risk factor for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a cohort study during an epidemic in Quebec. Clin Infect Dis.2005 1254 EOF 60 EOF - 126.
Cocanour C. Best Strategies in Recurrent or Persistent Clostridium difficile Infection Surg Infect (Larchmt).2011 Jun;12 3 235 9 - 127.
Bignardi G. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect.1 EOF 15 EOF 1998 - 128.
Stevens V. Dumyati G. Fine L. Fisher S. van Wijngaarden E. Cumulative antibiotic exposures over time and the risk of Clostridium difficile infection Clin Infect Dis.2011 42 EOF 48 EOF - 129.
European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Clin Microbiol Infect.Bauer M. Kuijper E. van Dissel J. 2009 Dec;15 12 1067 79 - 130.
The diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: comparison of triage C. difficile panel, EIA for Toxin A/B and cytotoxin assays. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis.Alfa M. Swan B. Van Dekerkhove B. Pang P. Harding G. 2002 43 257 263 - 131.
Louie T. Miller M. Mullane K. Weiss K. Lentnek A. Golan Y. et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection N Engl J Med.2011 Feb 3;364 5 422 3 - 132.
Neff G. Zacharias V. Kaiser T. Gaddis A. Kemmer N. Rifaximin for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection after : A case series N.Liver Transpl.2010 Aug;16 8 960 3 - 133.
Rifaximin Is Effective for the Treatment of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea: Results of an Open-Label Pilot Study.Gastroenterol Res Pract.Rubin D. Sohi S. Glathar M. Thomas T. Yadron N. Surma B. 2011 - 134.
Struggling with recurrent Clostridium difficile infections: is donor faeces the solution? Euro Surveill.van Nood E. Speelman P. Kuijper E. Keller J. 2009 Aug 27;14(34). pii: 19316 - 135.
Systematic review: faecal transplantation for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther.Guo B. Harstall C. Louie T. Veldhuyzen van Zanten. S. Dieleman L. 2012 Feb 23. [Epub ahead of print] - 136.
Cohen S. H. Gerding D. N. Johnson S. Kelly C. Loo V. Mc Donald L. 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 Epidemiol2010 31 431 55 - 137.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital Signs: Preventing Clostridium difficile Infections. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.2012 Mar 9;61 157 62 - 138.
MJAPham M. Lemberg D. Day A. Probiotics sorting. the evidence. from the. myths M. J. 2008 188 5 304 308 - 139.
Allen S. Martinez E. Gregorio G. Dans L. Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2010 Nov 10;(11):CD003048 EOF - 140.
Bernaola Aponte. G. Bada Mancilla. C. Carreazo Pariasca. N. Rojas Galarza. R. Probiotics for treating persistent diarrhoea in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2010 Nov 10;(11):CD007401 EOF - 141.
Saccharomyces boulardii in acute childhood diarrhoea: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Acta PaediatrVillarruel G. Rubio D. Lopez F. Cintioni J. Gurevech R. Romero G. et al. 2007 96 4 538 41 - 142.
Fang S. Lee H. Hu J. Hou S. Liu H. Fang H. Dose-dependent effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on quantitative reduction of faecal rotavirus shedding in children J Trop Pediatr.2009 Oct;55 5 297 301 - 143.
Szajewska H. Mrukowicz J. Probiotics in the treatment and prevention of acute infectious diarrhea in infants and children: a systematic review of published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr.2001 Suppl 2:S17 EOF 25 EOF - 144.
Cazzaniga M. Dionigi E. Gobbo G. Fioretti A. Monti V. Salerno F. The systemic inflammatory response syndrome in cirrhotic patients: relationship with their in-hospital outcome J Hepatol.2009 Sep;51 3 475 82 - 145.
Frequency of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in 2462 antibiotic-treated patients: a prospective study. J Antimicrob ChemotherWiström J. Norrby S. Myhre E. Eriksson S. Granström G. Lagergren L. et al. 2001 47 43 50 - 146.
Avadhani A. Miley H. Probiotics for prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile-associated disease in hospitalized adults-a meta-analysis. Am Acad Nurse Pract.2011 Jun;23 6 269 74 - 147.
Kale-Pradhan P. Jassal H. Wilhelm S. Role of Lactobacillus in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a meta-analysis 2010 Feb;30 2 119 26 - 148.
Pardi D. D’Haens G. Shen B. Campbell S. Gionchetti P. Clinical guidelines for the management of pouchitis Inflamm Bowel Dis.2009 15 1421 1431 - 149.
Probiotics in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Asociated Conditions. Nutrients.Mack D. 2011 Feb;3 2 245 264 - 150.
Mallon P. Mc Kay D. Kirk S. Gardiner K. Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2007 CD005573 EOF - 151.
Kato K. Mizuno S. Umesaki Y. Ishii Y. Sugitani M. Imaoka A. et al. Randomized placebo-controlled trial assessing the effect of bifidobacteria-fermented milk on active ulcerative colitis Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.2004 20 1133 41 - 152.
Tursi A. Brandimarte G. Giorgetti G. Forti G. ME Modeo Gigliobianco. A. Low-dose balsalazide plus a high-potency probiotic preparation is more effective than balsalazide alone or mesalazine in the treatment of acute-mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Med. Sci. Monit.2004 PI126 PI131. - 153.
Non-pathogenic Eschericia coli versus mesalazine for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a randomized trial. Lancet.Rembacken B. Snelling A. Hawkey P. Chalmers D. Axon A. 1999 354 635 639 - 154.
Effect of a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) on induction and maintenance of remission in children with ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol.Miele E. Pascarella F. Giannetti E. Quaglietta L. Baldassano R. Staiano A. 2009 104 437 443 - 155.
Fujimori S, Gudis K, Mitsui K, Seo T, Yonezawa M, Tanaka S, et al. A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of symbiotic versus probiotic or prebiotic treatment to improve the quality of life in patients with ulcerative colitis. Nutrition. 2009;25:520-525. - 156.
TheSood A. Midha V. Makharia G. Ahuja V. Singal D. Goswami P. Tandon R. probiotic preparation VSL#3 induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009 7 1202 1209 - 157.
Matthes H, Krummerel T, Giensch M, Wolff C, Schulze J. Clinical trial: probiotic treatment of acute distal ulcerative colitis with rectally administered Eschericia coli Nissle 1917(ECN). BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2010;10:13 - 158.
Kruis W. Fric P. Pokrotnieks J. Lukas M. Fixa B. Kascak M. et al. Maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis with the probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 is as effective as with standard mesalazine Gut.2004 53 1617 1623 - 159.
Zocco M. dal Verme. L. Cremonini F. Piscaglia A. Nista E. Candelli M. et al. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis Aliment Pharmacol Ther2006 23 1567 1574 - 160.
Ishikawa H. Akedo I. Umesmaki Y. Tanaka R. Imaoka A. Otani T. Randomized controlled trial of the effect of Bifidobacteria-fermented milk on ulcerative colitis. J Am Coll Nutr.2003 22 56 63 - 161.
Oliva S, Di Nardo G, Ferrari F, Mallardo S, Rossi P, Patrizi G, et al. Randomised clinical trial: the effectiveness of Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 rectal enema in children with active distal ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Feb;35(3):327-34. - 162.
Zakostelska Z. Kverka M. Klimesova K. Rossmann P. Mrazek J. Kopecny J. et al. Lysate of probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001 ameliorates colitis by strengthening the gut barrier function and changing the gut microenvironment PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27961. Epub2011 Nov 22. - 163.
Munoz P, Bouza E, Cuenca-Estrella M, Eiros J, Perez M, Sanchez-Somolinos M, et al. Saccharmoyces cerevisiae fungaemia: an emerging infectious disease. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1625-34. - 164.
Rhamnosus sepsis in a patient with ulcerative colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol.Farina C. Arosio M. Mangia M. Moioli F. Lactobacillus casei. subsp 2001 33 251 252 - 165.
Alfaleh K. Anabrees J. Bassler D. Al-Kharfi T. Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2011 Mar 16;(3):CD005496 EOF - 166.
Alfaleh K. Anabrees J. Bassler D. Probiotics reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants: a meta-analysis 2010 97 2 93 9 - 167.
Deshpande G. Rao S. Patole S. Bulsara M. Updated meta-analysis of probiotics for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates 2010 125 5 921 30 - 168.
Braga T. da Silva. G. de Lira P. de Carvalho L. Efficacy of Bifidobacterium breve and Lactobacillus casei oral supplementation on necrotizing enterocolitis in very-low-birth-weight preterm infants: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial Am J Clin Nutr.2011 Jan;93 1 81 6 - 169.
Tarnow-Mordi W. Wilkinson D. Trivedi A. Brok J. Probiotics reduce all-cause mortality and necrotizing enterocolitis: it is time to change practice 2010 125 5 1068 70 - 170.
Probiotic therapy of the irritable bowel syndrome. Dtsch Med Wochenschr.Enck P. Klosterhalfen S. Martens U. 2011 Feb;136 8 371 5 - 171.
Mc Farland L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of Saccharomyces boulardii in adult patients World J Gastroenterol.2010 May 14;16 18 2202 22 - 172.
Hoveyda N, Heneghan C, Mahtani K, Perera R, Roberts N, Glasziou P. A systematic review and meta-analysis: probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. BMC Gastroenterol. 2009 Feb 16;9:15. - 173.
Moayyedi P. Ford A. Talley N. Cremonini F. Foxx-Orenstein A. Brandt L. et al. The efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review Gut.2010 Mar;59 3 325 32 - 174.
Mc Farland L. Dublin S. Meta-analysis of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome World J Gastroenterol.2008 May 7;14 17 2650 61