4.6 Article

Emerging Invasive Fungal Infections: Clinical Features and Controversies in Diagnosis and Treatment Processes

期刊

INFECTION AND DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 607-615

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S237815

关键词

invasive fungal infections; clinical features; microbiological results; risk factors; hospitalization

资金

  1. Science and Technology Project of Hunan Province, China [2015SK2028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The diagnosis and treatment of invasive fungal infection (IFI) are still challenging due to its complexity and non-specificity. This study was aimed to investigate the clinical features, diagnosis process, and outcomes of patients with emerging IFIs. Methods: A retrospective review of emerging IFIs in adult patients at a university hospital in China was conducted; diagnoses were based on the criteria of EORTC/MSG 2008. Results: 145 IFI patients (pulmonary, intestinal and urinary) were enrolled in this study, including 80 proven (55.2%), 59 probable (40.7%), or 6 possible IFIs (4.1%). Among the 126 pulmonary IFIs, the positivity rate for sputum microscopy, sputum culture, and 1.3-beta-D-glucan (BG) test was 54.0%, 44.4%, and 37.3%, respectively. Among the 19 intestinal and urinary IFIs, routine examination of stool or urine and their culture were the main methods of detection. Positive results of 75 detected fungal strains from the samples showed that 30 cases were complicated with one or more bacterial infections. The average length of hospital stay of IFI patients was 14.0 (10.0, 20.0) days. The time from admission to antifungal therapy initiation (P<0.001), liver cirrhosis (P<0.001), hematological tumor (P<0.001), coinfection (P=0.019) and immune diseases (P=0.025) were independent predictors of prolonged hospitalization. Conclusion: Delayed time was the primary predictor of prolonged hospitalization. This prediction is suggested to improve IFI diagnostic and therapeutic process of IFI to promote prognosis.

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

4.6
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