4.5 Review

The epidemiology of fungemia in an infectious diseases hospital in Mexico city: A 10-year retrospective review

Journal

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 600-604

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myw017

Keywords

Fungemia; blood cultures; Candida sp; deep mycoses; fungal diseases; opportunistic infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The epidemiology of invasive fungal infections has recently changed in immunosuppressed populations as a result of HIV infection, organ transplant, chemotherapy and in elderly patients. The diagnosis of invasive fungal infections by culture is prolonged since fungi grow slowly in vitro. we wanted to estimate the frequency of fungemia diagnoses established through the Clinical Mycology Laboratory over the past 10 years; through a retrospective study; data was obtained from the laboratory patient registry in the Infectious Disease Hospital's laboratory registry of patients with a systemic fungal isolate between 2005 and 2014. One hundred and thirty two (132) systemic fungal infections were identified. They were more prevalent in males, in the age group between 20 and 59 years and in patients with a diagnosis of AIDS. The most frequently isolated agents belonged to the genus Candida and others such as Histoplasma sp., Cryptococcus sp., Aspergillus sp., and Coccidioides sp. Of all blood and bone marrow cultures received 17.9% had fungal development; of these, in 70% of cases it was through blood cultures. In general, fungal agents were not diagnostically suspected. We identified that Sixty percent (60%) of fungemias developed in AIDS patients, followed by patients with sepsis. The most common agents belonged to the genus Candida, predominantly the albicans species. They were more frequently identified by blood culture than by bone marrow culture. Invasive fungal infections have not followed a usual clinical pattern and are not easily recognizable.

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