4.6 Review

Ocular candidiasis: a review

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 466-468

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.133405

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To review the epidemiology, diagnosis and changing treatment paradigm of ocular candidiasis, and report current prevalence rates and risk factors at one inpatient hospital. Design: Retrospective review; systematic literature review. Methods: All Wills Eye Institute inpatient ophthalmology consultations from Thomas Jefferson University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed between June 2006 and November 2006. All consultations for candidaemia were included. The outcome variables included chorioretinitis, endophthalmitis, visual symptoms and Candida speciation. The ophthalmic literature was reviewed using PubMed. Keywords included Candida, candidaemia, chorioretinitis, vitritis and endophthalmitis. Bibliographies were manually searched. Results: Three of the 38 consultations for candidaemia ( 7.9%) had chorioretinitis. There were no cases of vitritis or endophthalmitis. The presence of symptoms, or the inability to articulate symptoms, was significantly associated with risk of ocular candidiasis ( p= 0.003). All three cases of chorioretinitis had positive blood cultures for Candida albicans ( p= 0.089) and were treated with oral fluconazole. Conclusions: Various factors have led to the increasing prevalence of inpatient candidaemia. Risk factors for ocular involvement include albicans species and the presence of, or inability to articulate, visual symptoms. For those without abnormal findings on initial examination, a subsequent retinal examination should be performed in 2 weeks, particularly if new symptoms develop or if the patient is unable to relay symptoms. Patients with chorioretinitis should be treated with systemic antifungal agents. For those with vitritis or endophthalmitis, particularly if worsening on systemic therapy alone, intravitreal antifungal medications or early vitrectomy should be considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据