La Tunisie medicale · 2019
Empiric antifungal and outcome in ICU patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trifi Ahlem, Abdellatif Sami, Daly Foued, Nasri Rochdi, Touil Yosr, Ben Lakhal Salah
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The management of invasive candidiasis (IC) remains a major challenge in intensive care units (ICU). On the one hand, it becomes admitted that delayed antifungal is an independent mortality factor. In the other hand, the unreasonable administration of antifungal agents is implicated in emergence of resistant Candida strains. Aim: to evaluate whether empirical antifungal therapy (EAFT) improves survival at day 28 and prevents a new episode of candidemia in septic patients without proven Candida infection.
METHODS: a 8-years retrospective double cohort, monocentric study, comparing two arms of ICU non neutropenic septic patients without proven fungal infection according to administration or not of an EAFT. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality and the second was the occurrence of candidemia. The analysis was adjusted on Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Candida score, invasive ventilation and central catheterisation.
RESULTS: 247 patients were included (EAFT group, n=125 and non EAFT group, n=122). No improvement of 28-day survival was found. These results were in accordance both in crude analysis and after adjusting on factors mentioned above. No preventing effect on a new episode of candidemia. Nevertheless, a beneficial effect of EAFT on survival was found in patients with an APACHE II score<16: OR=0.68; CI 95% [0.53-0.87]; p=0.002.
CONCLUSIONS: no beneficial impact of an EAFT on 28- day survival neither in preventing the occurrence of candidemia in non neutropenic septic critically patients. In patients with APACHE II score less than 16, there was a beneficial effect on survival.
METHODS: a 8-years retrospective double cohort, monocentric study, comparing two arms of ICU non neutropenic septic patients without proven fungal infection according to administration or not of an EAFT. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality and the second was the occurrence of candidemia. The analysis was adjusted on Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Candida score, invasive ventilation and central catheterisation.
RESULTS: 247 patients were included (EAFT group, n=125 and non EAFT group, n=122). No improvement of 28-day survival was found. These results were in accordance both in crude analysis and after adjusting on factors mentioned above. No preventing effect on a new episode of candidemia. Nevertheless, a beneficial effect of EAFT on survival was found in patients with an APACHE II score<16: OR=0.68; CI 95% [0.53-0.87]; p=0.002.
CONCLUSIONS: no beneficial impact of an EAFT on 28- day survival neither in preventing the occurrence of candidemia in non neutropenic septic critically patients. In patients with APACHE II score less than 16, there was a beneficial effect on survival.