Evidence Hub

Clinical analysis of 16 patients with Clostridium butyricum isolated from blood cultures: A 10-year single-center case series and review of published cases

Yoshinaga S, Watanabe M, Ito H, Hatakeyama S, Saitou Y, Yamamura R, Hashimoto N, Nanmoku T et al.

New microbes and new infections, 2026

16 participants

Abstract

Objectives: Clostridium butyricum is an anaerobic gram-positive bacillus widely used as a probiotic preparation in Japan. Although generally considered safe, C. butyricum has rarely been isolated from blood cultures, particularly in immunocompromised or medically complex patients. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, microbiological findings, treatment, and outcomes of patients with C. butyricum isolated from blood cultures at a single academic hospital and to summarize published cases.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 16 patients with C. butyricum isolated from blood cultures at University of Tsukuba Hospital between 2015 and 2025. Clinical characteristics, microbiological findings, antimicrobial treatment, and outcomes were evaluated. Preserved institutional isolates were identified using mass spectrometry and polymerase chain reaction-based ribotyping. We also summarized 31 published cases descriptively.

Results: Sixteen institutional cases were identified. The most common clinical characteristic was central venous catheter use (75.0%). In many cases, C. butyricum was isolated from a single anaerobic blood culture bottle. All preserved institutional isolates were confirmed as C. butyricum and showed type B ribotyping patterns; however, strain-level attribution was not possible. All patients received β-lactam antibiotics, and three patients (18.8%) died. The 31 published cases were heterogeneous in age, clinical context, and microbiological identification…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free