Table 3. Review of the literature on stool transplantation for Clostridium difficile infections. Summary of all studies and larger case series (≥4 patients) published to date (e12– e35) and cumulative analysis.
| Reference, year | Country | Patients (n) | Successful treatments (n) | Response rate (%) | Application (method) | Study design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eiseman B et al., 1958 (e12) | USA | 4 | 4 | 100% | Rectal enema | Case series |
| Bowden TA et al., 1981 (e13) | USA | 16 | 14 | 88% | Rectal enema (14 patients) Nasoduodenal tube (2 patients) |
Case series |
| Tvede M, Rask-Madsen J, 1989 (e14) | Denmark | 6 | 5 | 83% | Rectal enema | Case series |
| Paterson DL et al., 1994 (e15) | Australia | 7 | 7 | 100% | Rectal enema | Case series |
| Lund-Tønnesen S et al., 1998 (e16) | Norway | 18 | 15 | 83% | Colonoscopy | Case series |
| Gustafsson A et al., 1998 (e17) | Sweden | 9 | 9 | 100% | Rectal enema | Case series |
| Aas J et al., 2003 (e18) | USA | 18 | 15 | 83% | Nasoduodenal tube | Case series |
| Nieuwdorp M et al., 2008 (e19) | Netherlands | 7 | 7 | 100% | Colonoscopy | Case series |
| MacConnachie AA et al., 2009 (e20) | UK | 15 | 11 | 73% | Nasogastric tube | Case series |
| Rubin TA et al., 2009 (e21) | USA | 12 | 10 | 83% | Nasogastric tube | Case series |
| Rohlke F et al., 2010 (e22) | USA | 19 | 19 | 100% | Colonoscopy | Case series |
| Yoon SS, Brandt LJ., 2010 (e23) | USA | 12 | 12 | 100% | Colonoscopy | Case series |
| Garborg K et al., 2010 (e24) | Norway | 40 | 33 | 83% | Duodenoscopy (38 patients) Colonoscopy (2 patients) |
Retrospective observational study |
| Silverman MS et al., 2010 (e25) | Canada | 7 | 7 | 100% | Rectal enema | Case series |
| Polak P et al., 2011 (e26) | Czech Republic | 15 | 12 | 78% | Colonoscopy | Prospective observational study |
| Mellow MH, Kanatzar A, 2011 (e27) | USA | 13 | 11 | 85% | Colonoscopy | Case series |
| Kassam Z et al., 2012 (e28) | USA | 27 | 25 | 93% | Rectal enema | Case series |
| Brandt LJ et al., 2012 (e29) | USA | 77 | 70 | 91% | Colonoscopy | Retrospective observational study |
| Hamilton MJ et al., 2012 (e30) | USA | 43 | 37 | 86% | Colonoscopy | Retrospective observational study |
| Kelly CR et al., 2012 (e31) | USA | 26 | 24 | 92% | Colonoscopy | Retrospective observational study |
| Mattila E et al., 2012 (e32) | Finland | 70 | 66 | 94% | Colonoscopy | Retrospective observational study |
| Jorup-Rönström C et al., 2012 (e33) | Sweden | 32 | 22 | 69% | Rectal enema (27 patients) Colonoscopy (5 patients) |
Retrospective observational study |
| Maire F, 2012 (e34) | France | 34 | 34 | 100% | Colonoscopy | Prospective observational study |
| van Nood et al., 2013 (e35) | Netherlands | 16 | 15 | 94% | Nasoduodenal tube | Randomized controlled trial |
| Summary | ||||||
| Pooled data (total) | 543 | 484 | 89% | |||
| Antegrade application (nasogastric/nasoduodenal tube) | 101 | 83 | 82% | |||
| Retrograde application | 442 | 401 | 91%*1 | |||
| Colonoscopy | 341 | 313 | 92%*2 | |||
| Rectal retention enema | 101 | 88 | 87% | |||
*1p = 0.013; *2p = 0.005; statistical testing of retrograde versus antegrade application was performed using two-tailed Pearson‘s chi-square test