4.7 Article

Candida glabrata fungemia:: Experience in a tertiary care center

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 41, 期 7, 页码 975-981

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/432939

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. During the past decade, Candida glabrata has emerged as an important cause of fungemia. We reviewed demographic data, risk factors, treatment, and outcomes associated with C. glabrata fungemia from 1995 2002 and performed susceptibility testing of isolates. Methods. Data on all episodes of fungemia were prospectively recorded, and the associated isolates were saved. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Susceptibility testing was performed for fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole. Results. C. glabrata caused 103 (17%) of 609 fungemic episodes during the 8-year period that we studied. Medical records and isolates were available for 94 episodes that occurred in 91 patients. The patients included 42 men and 49 women. The mean age was 51 years. Thirty-four episodes (36%) occurred in patients 160 years old; only 3 episodes occurred in patients ! 1 year old. The most common predisposing factors were use of broad-spectrum antibiotics (in 86% of episodes), use of central venous catheters (77%), stay in an intensive care unit (48%), renal failure (46%), and receipt of parenteral nutrition (45%). Of the 94 episodes, 83 were treated with antifungal agents. The overall mortality rate at day 30 was 29%. For the 11 episodes that were not treated, the mortality rate was 64% (7 of 11 episodes). Outcome appeared to be unrelated to whether fluconazole or amphotericin B was administered. In vitro, 60% of isolates were resistant to fluconazole, 83% to itraconazole, and 44% to voriconazole. Susceptibility to these azoles did not change over the 8 years of the study.\\Conclusion. C. glabrata fungemia was most often seen in older adults and was associated with a mortality rate of 29%. Outcomes appeared to be unrelated to in vitro susceptibility results and to the antifungal agent used.

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

4.7
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