4.5 Article

EQUAL Candida score, an effective tool for predicting the outcomes of Candida tropicalis candidaemia: A retrospective cohort study

期刊

MYCOSES
卷 65, 期 4, 页码 473-480

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/myc.13429

关键词

Candida tropicalis; candidaemia; case fatality; EQUAL score

资金

  1. Siriraj Research Fund [R016333035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the associations between case fatality and patient characteristics, infectious disease unit consultation, and the EQUAL Candida score in cases of Candida tropicalis bloodstream infection. The results showed that septic shock, mechanical ventilation use, and the EQUAL Candida score were independent factors for predicting the 30-day case fatality rate.
Background Candida tropicalis is the most common non-albicans Candida species found in Asia-Pacific countries, including Thailand. The pathogen is known for its great virulence, which causes a high case-fatality rate. Associations between case fatality and patient characteristics, infectious disease unit consultation and EQUAL Candida score were investigated. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted with 160 cases of C. tropicalis bloodstream infection between 2015 and 2019 at a single, large, tertiary centre in Thailand. Clinical characteristics, clinical presentations, patient outcomes (30-day case-fatality rate) and independent predictive factors were analysed. Results The 30-day case-fatality rate was 68.1%. The median of the EQUAL Candida score was 8. Independent factors for the prediction of case fatality were septic shock (hazard ratio, 1.84), the use of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 2.03) and the EQUAL Candida score (hazard ratio, 0.75). Conclusions The predictive factors for 30-day case fatality were septic shock, mechanical ventilation use and the EQUAL Candida score. It is recommended that the EQUAL score be considered for patients infected with C. tropicalis candidaemia to reduce the case-fatality rate.

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