Evaluation of Rectal Vancomycin Irrigation for Treatment of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Patients...

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) accounts for as many as 25% of episodes of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and is the most common cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea. Rectal vancomycin irrigation is a therapy option; however, evidence is limited for its value post-colectomy. The objective of this study was to describe outcomes of patients who underwent total colectomy for fulminant C. difficile colitis and received rectal vancomycin post-operatively. This was a single-center retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent total colectomy for fulminant CDI. Efficacy outcomes were all-cause in-hospital death, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, ventilator-free days at day 28 post-procedure, development of proctitis or pseudomembranes, need for re-initiation of CDI therapy, and normalization of infectious signs and symptoms at completion of CDI therapy. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of rectal stump blowout. Of the 50 patients included, 38 (76%) received treatment with rectal vancomycin at the discretion of the surgeon. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on the day of the procedure was higher in the rectal vancomycin group; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. No difference was observed between the groups in the primary outcome of all-cause death. There was no significant difference between the groups for hospital length of stay, but there was a trend toward longer ICU length of stay for patients who received rectal vancomycin (9.5 days vs. 2.5 days; p = 0.05). No differences in the remaining secondary efficacy outcomes were observed. No episodes of rectal stump blowout were observed in either group. This study aimed to add to the limited data on the use of rectal vancomycin irrigation post-colectomy for toxic C. difficile colitis. Although our results do not support routine use of rectal vancomycin irrigation, they suggest that this therapy is not harmful if providers are considering its use for severe infections refractory to alternative treatment.