4.3 Article

Clinical significance of Candida colonization of intravascular catheters in the absence of documented candidemia

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 157-161

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.03.002

Keywords

Bloodstream infection; Candida spp.; Central venous catheter; Intravascular catheter; Outcome; Tip culture

Funding

  1. Fundacion Mutua Madrilena
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Instituto de Salud Carlos III) [CM11/00187]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to assess the significance of Candida colonization of intravascular catheters (IVC) in patients without documented candidemia, we retrospectively reviewed all Candida-positive IVC tip cultures over a 4-year period. Cases were defined as those with a culture yielding 15 colony-forming units of Candida spp. that either did not have blood cultures (BC) taken or had concomitant BC negative for Candida. Patients were followed up until death or 8 months after discharge. Risk factors for poor outcome following IVC removal (death, candidemia, or Candida-related complication) were analyzed. We analyzed a total of 40 patients. Overall mortality was 40.0%, with no death directly attributed to Candida infection. Twenty-two patients received antifungal therapy at the time of IVC removal. Only 1 patient developed a metastatic complication (chorioretinitis) attributable to transient candidemia (2.5% of the global cohort and 3.7% among those with concomitant BC). There were no cases of subsequent candidemia. In the multivariate analysis, the use of antifungal therapy did not show any impact on the risk of poor outcome. The risk of invasive disease in patients with isolated IVC colonization by Candida seems to be low. Nevertheless, the initiation of systemic antifungal therapy should be carefully considered in such context. (C) 2012 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available