4.6 Review

Impact of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on fungal carriage and infection: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 898-910

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-2654-9

关键词

antibiotic prophylaxis; antifungal agents; carriage; selective decontamination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the impact of the antifungal component of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on fungal carriage, infection and fungaemia. Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Study selection: Data sources included Medline, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, previous meta-analyses, personal communications and conference proceedings, without restriction of language or publication status. All randomized trials were selected that compared oropharyngeal and/or intestinal administration of antifungals amphotericin B or nystatin, as part of selective decontamination protocol, with no treatment in the controls. There were 42 randomized controlled trials with a total of 6,075 critically ill patients. Methods: Three reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment and extracted the data. The main outcome measures were patients with fungal carriage, patients with fungal infections and patients with fungaemia. Odds ratios were pooled with the random effect model. Measurements and results: Enteral antifungals significantly reduced fungal carriage (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.53) and overall fungal infections (0.30, 0.17-0.53). Fungaemia was not significantly reduced in the treatment group (0.89, 0.16-4.95). Conclusions: Antifungals, as part of selective decontamination of the digestive tract, reduce fungal carriage and infection but not fungaemia in critically ill patients and may justify the inclusion of an antifungal component in the decontamination protocol.

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