4.6 Article

The Impact of Biofilm Formation on the Persistence of Candidemia

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01196

关键词

candidemia; biofilm; invasive candidiasis; antifungal susceptibility; vascular catheter

资金

  1. Merck Co., Ltd.
  2. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan [CMRPG 8E1581]
  3. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the predictors of persistent candidemia and examine the impact of biofilm formation by Candida isolates in adult patients with candidemia. Of the adult patients with candidemia in Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between January 2007 and December 2012, 68 case patients with persistent candidemia (repeated candidemia after a 3-day systemic antifungal therapy) and 68 control patients with non-persistent candidemia (Candida clearance from the bloodstream after a 3-day systemic antifungal therapy) were included based on propensity score matching and matching for the Candida species isolated. Biofilm formation by the Candida species was assessed in vitro using standard biomass assays. Presence of central venous catheters (CVCs) at diagnosis (adjusted odd ratio [AOR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.09-13.00, p = 0.04), infection with higher biofilm forming strains of Candida species (AOR, 8.03; 95% CI, 2.50-25.81; p < 0.01), and receipt of suboptimal fluconazole doses as initial therapy (AOR, 5.54; 95% CI, 1.53-20.10; p < 0.01) were independently associated with persistent candidemia. Biofilm formation by Candida albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. glabrata strains was significantly higher in the case patients than in the controls. There were no significant differences in the overall mortality and duration of hospitalization between the two groups. Our data suggest that, other than presence of retained CVCs and use of suboptimal doses of fluconazole, biofilm formation was highly associated with development of persistent candidemia.

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