4.7 Article

Risk factors for and clinical implications of mixed Candida/bacterial bloodstream infections

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 62-68

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03906.x

关键词

Bacteraemia; candidaemia; co-infection; risk factors; treatment outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixed Candida/bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) have been reported to occur in more than 23% of all episodes of candidaemia. However, the clinical implications of mixed Candida/bacterial BSIs are not well known. We performed a retrospective case-control study of all consecutive patients with candidaemia over a 5-year period to determine the risk factors for and clinical outcomes of mixed Candida/bacterial BSIs (cases) compared with monomicrobial candidaemia (controls). Thirty-seven (29%) out of 126 patients with candidaemia met the criteria for cases. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the predominant bacteria (23%) in cases. In multivariate analysis, duration of previous hospital stay >= 7 weeks (odds ratio (OR), 2.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-7.53), prior antibiotic therapy >= 7 days (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.82) and septic shock at the time of candidaemia (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.14-5.93) were significantly associated with cases. Documented clearance of candidaemia within 3 days after initiation of antifungal therapy was less frequent in cases (63% vs. 84%; p = 0.035). The difference in the rate of treatment failure at 2 weeks was not significant between cases (68%) and controls (62%; p = 0.55). The crude mortality at 6 weeks and survival through 100 days did not differ between the two patient groups (p = 0.56 and p = 0.80, respectively). Mixed Candida/bacterial BSIs showed a lower clearance rate of candidaemia during the early period of antifungal therapy, although the treatment response and survival rate were similar regardless of concurrent bacteraemia. Further studies on the clinical relevance of species-specific Candida-bacterial interactions are needed.

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

4.7
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