4.2 Article

Long-term survival following fungal catheter-related bloodstream infection for patients with intestinal failure receiving home parenteral support

Journal

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 159-164

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jpen.2451

Keywords

catheter-related bloodstream infection; fungaemia; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that the occurrence of fungal CRBSI does not increase the risk of death.
Background A fungal-related catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is less frequent than those induced by bacteria. In the past, a single episode of fungal CRBSI has been used as a marker of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) failure and thus a possible indication for intestinal transplantation. Methods Survival outcomes were assessed from a prospectively maintained database of patients initiated on HPN for underlying chronic intestinal failure between 1993 and 2018, with a censoring date of December 31, 2020. Cox regression was performed to assess predictors of mortality with univariable and multivariable analysis. Results A total of 1008 patients were included in the study, with a total of 1 364 595 catheter days. There were 513 CRBSI events recorded in 262 patients, equating to a CRBSI rate of 0.38/1000 catheter days. A total of 38/262 (14.5%) patients had at least one episode of fungal CRBSI, whereas 216/262 (82.4%) had at least one bacterial but no fungal CRBSI. The median time between HPN initiation and the first CRBSI episode was 20.6 months (95% confidence interval, 16.5-24.1). Episodes of fungal or bacterial CRBSI and the number of CRBSI episodes were not associated with increased mortality. Overall, 15 CRBSI-related deaths were observed in the observation period (0.01 CRBSI deaths/1000 catheter days), two of these were fungal in origin. Conclusion The occurrence of a fungal CRBSI does not increase the risk of death compared with patients who have bacterial CRBSI or those without a CRBSI event.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available