there is never "nothing to lose", although it seems a good option here. Risk seems low, and potenal for benefit seems really high.
But, there is a burden of money and time, which the OT has notes is not inconsiderable.
And, there is also some small risk with any colonscopy. We all sign those consent forms, and adverse events from reaction to anesthesia or bowel perforation are possible. (I know, my bowel was perforated during a colonscopy and I had to have major surgery and a week in the ICU where my life was touch and go.)
And, there can be rare adverse consequences of 20 days of antibiotics. Some here even think that antibiotics triggered their UC. There may also be GI upset and nausea during the 20 days of antibiotics.
Also the growing database of FT used for c.diff does suggest that the risk of infection/disease from the donor appear to be minimal (i.e., it looks safe). But this is still a relatively small database. It may turn out there is some adverse event in a few cases out of every thousand.
All this is not "nothing".
Not too long ago there was news about
a hospital that discovered a problem with its procedure for cleaning the scope after colonscopies, and all kinds of legal action ensued. Just because patients were exposed to the possibility of a small bit of fluid or fecal matter left in a crevasse of the scope. Well this involves more than the possibility of a small bit of fecal matter. It is a whopping dose of poop!
I still think FT is a smart choice in this case, but I don't agree with cavalier phrases like "nothing to lose". We can be encouraged by new therapies without becoming uncritical gushing cheerleaders.
Post Edited (DBwithUC) : 12/14/2012 10:58:36 AM (GMT-7)