4.5 Article

Epidemiology and clinical outcomes of invasive mould infections in Indian intensive care units (FISF study)

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 51, Issue -, Pages 64-70

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.02.005

Keywords

Mould infections; Intensive care unit; Aspergillosis; Mucormycosis; Risk factors; Therapy

Funding

  1. MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. through Fungal Infection Study Forum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aim: Due to limited data on invasive mould infections (IMIs) in the intensive care units (ICUs) of developing countries, we ascertain epidemiology and management of IMIs at 11 ICUs across India. Methods: Consecutive patients with proven or probable/putative IMIs were enrolled during the study period. Subjects were categorized into classical (neutropenia, malignancy, transplant recipients on immunosuppression) and non-classical (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, liver disease and glucocorticoids) risk groups. We analyzed the demographic, laboratory variables and outcomes of these patients. Results: 398 patients with IMIs (96 proven, 302 probable) were identified, amounting to a prevalence of 9.5 cases/1000 ICU admissions. The mean +/- SD age of the participants was 45.6 +/- 21.9 years. The mean +/- SD APACHE II score was 14.3 +/- 11.4. The IMIs were diagnosed at a median of 4 days after ICU admission. There were 145 and 253 subjects with classical and non-classical risk groups, respectively. Although Aspergillus spp. were the commonest (82.1%) isolates, Mucorales were detected in 14.4% subjects. A high APACHE II score and IMI due to mucormycosis were significant predictors of mortality. Conclusions: The study highlights the distinct epidemiology of IMIs in India ICUs with high burden, new susceptible patient groups and considerable number of non Aspergillus mould infections. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available