4.5 Article

Evaluation of Candida bloodstream infection and antifungal utilization in a tertiary care hospital

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3094-9

关键词

Antifungal; Candidemia; Consumption; Defined daily dose; Days of therapy

资金

  1. Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein
  2. Microbiology Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Candida bloodstream infections carry a significant mortality risk, justifying the importance of adequate antifungal therapy. This study describes trends in antifungal consumption using the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) and Days of Therapy (DOT) metrics, identifies the microbiological profile, the time to initiation of empirical therapy, the adjustment after positive blood culture results for Candida, and the impact on in-hospital mortality rate in patients with candidemia. Methods: An analysis of antifungal consumption from 2008 to 2016, and of candidemia cases from 2012 to 2016 was carried out in a private tertiary hospital. Results: A total of 11,273 admissions were identified with a prescription for at least one type of antifungal therapy. Fluconazole was the most prescribed antifungal drug in terms of general consumption. Through the DDD and DOT metrics, we observed that over time, there was an increase in the consumption of liposomal amphotericin B, micafungin and voriconazole. Candida albicans was the most isolated species in blood cultures. Regarding candidemia, we analyzed samples from 115 patients. Empirical therapy was started within 24 h of blood culture in 44.3% of the cases, and in 81.7% of the cases, the antifungal was deemed to be adequate based in antifungal susceptibility testing, both of which were not associated with the in-hospital mortality rate. Conclusions: Our study reinforces the importance of monitoring the consumption of antifungal agents, which helps in proposing actions that lead to their rational use and, consequently, reduces the appearance of resistant strains.

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