4.5 Article

Bloodstream infections by Malassezia and Candida species in critical care patients

期刊

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 264-269

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myt004

关键词

Malassezia furfur; fungal bloodstream infection; neonates

资金

  1. Qatar National Research Fund [NPRP 5-298-3-086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite being considered an emerging yeast related to immunocompromised individuals, severe infections by Malassezia furfur have not been evaluated. During a one-year survey on yeasts fungemia, 290 neonatal and 17 pediatric patients with intravascular catheters, lipid parenteral nutrition, prolonged ward stay, and surgery were enrolled. In addition, the origin of the infection was investigated by swabbing hand skin of patients, parents, and healthcare workers and medical devices. All biological specimens and swabs were cultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar and Dixon agar. The yeasts identification was based on morphological and biochemical features and by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) and confirmed by sequencing the internal transcribed spacer of nuclear ribosomal DNA. A higher prevalence of M. furfur (2.1%) over Candida spp. (1.4%) caused bloodstream infections (BSIs). Twelve fungemia episodes were recorded: 2 by M. furfur in a pediatric ward and 10 in a neonatal intensive care unit (6 caused by M. furfur and 4 by Candida spp.). M. furfur was also isolated from the skin of all patients with BSIs, from the hand skin of a parent, and from an incubator surface and sheet. Patients with Candida spp. and M. furfur BSIs were successfully treated with intravenous liposomal Amphotericin B. These findings highlight the need for a more accurate etiological diagnosis in high-risk patients by adding lipid-supplemented culture media for Malassezia in the current mycological routine as the clinical features, patient management, and outcomes in both Candida and Malassezia fungemia do not differ.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据