Peritonitis candidiásica

Epidemiology of Candida isolates from Intensive Care Units in Colombia from 2010 to 2013

BACKGROUND

The frequency of Candida isolates as a cause of hospital infections has risen in recent years, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality. The knowledge of the epidemiology of those hospital acquired fungal infections is essential to implement an adequate antifungal therapy.

AIMS

To describe the epidemiology of Candida infections in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) from a surveillance network in Colombia.

METHODS

Information was collected from the microbiology laboratories of 20 tertiary healthcare institutions from 10 Colombian cities using the Whonet® software version 5.6. A general descriptive analysis of Candida species and susceptibility profiles focusing on fluconazole and voriconazole was completed between 2010 and 2013, including a sub-analysis of healthcare associated infections (HAIs) during the last year.

RESULTS

Candida isolates made up 94.5% of the 2680 fungal isolates considered, with similar proportions for Candida albicans and non-C. albicans Candida species (48.3% and 51.7%, respectively). Among the latter, Candida tropicalis (38.6%) and Candida parapsilosis (28.5%) were the most frequent species. Of note, among the blood isolates C. albicans was not the main species. Most of the species isolated were susceptible to fluconazole and voriconazole. From the HAIs reported, 25.5% were caused by Candida; central line-associated bloodstream infection was the most common HAI (58.8%). There were no statistically significant differences regarding length of hospital stay and device days among HAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

In ICUs of Colombia, non-C. albicans Candida species are as frequent as C. albicans, except in blood samples where non-C. albicans Candida isolates predominate. Further studies are needed to evaluate Candida associated risk factors and to determine its clinical impact.

ÉPICO project. Development of educational recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients

BACKGROUND

Although there has been an improved management of invasive candidiasis in the last decade, controversial issues still remain, especially in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

AIMS

We sought to identify the core clinical knowledge and to achieve high level agreement recommendations required to care for critically ill adult patients with invasive candidiasis.

METHODS

A prospective Spanish survey reaching consensus by the DELPHI technique was made. It was anonymously conducted by electronic mail in a first term to 25 national multidisciplinary experts in invasive fungal infections from five national scientific societies, including intensivists, anesthesiologists, microbiologists, pharmacologists and infectious diseases specialists, who answered to 47 questions prepared by a coordination group after a strict review of the literature in the last five years. The educational objectives spanned five categories, including epidemiology, diagnostic tools, prediction rules, and treatment and de-escalation approaches. The level of agreement achieved among the panel experts in each item should exceed 75% to be selected. In a second term, after extracting recommendations from the selected items, a face to face meeting was performed where more than 80 specialists in a second round were invited to validate the preselected recommendations.

RESULTS

In the first term, 20 recommendations were preselected (Epidemiology 4, Scores 3, Diagnostic tools 4, Treatment 6 and De-escalation approaches 3). After the second round, the following 12 were validated: (1) Epidemiology (2 recommendations): think about candidiasis in your Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and do not forget that non-Candida albicans-Candida species also exist. (2) Diagnostic tools (4 recommendations): blood cultures should be performed under suspicion every 2-3 days and, if positive, every 3 days until obtaining the first negative result. Obtain sterile fluid and tissue, if possible (direct examination of the sample is important). Use non-culture based methods as microbiological tools, whenever possible. Determination of antifungal susceptibility is mandatory. (3) Scores (1 recommendation): as screening tool, use the Candida Score and determine multicolonization in high risk patients. (4) Treatment (4 recommendations): start early. Choose echinocandins. Withdraw any central venous catheter. Fundoscopy is needed. (5) De-escalation (1 recommendation): only applied when knowing susceptibility determinations and after 3 days of clinical stability. The higher rate of agreement was achieved in the optimization of microbiological tools and the withdrawal of the catheter, whereas the lower rate corresponded to de-escalation therapy and the use of scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients requires the application of a broad range of knowledge and skills that we summarize in our recommendations. These recommendations may help to identify the potential patients, standardize their global management and improve their outcomes, based on the DELPHI methodology.

[Épico project: Development of educational recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients. Grupo Proyecto Épico]

BACKGROUND

Although there has been an improved management of invasive candidiasis in the last decade, controversial issues still remain, especially in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

AIMS

We sought to identify the core clinical knowledge and to achieve high level agreement recommendations required to care for critically ill adult patients with invasive candidiasis.

METHODS

A prospective Spanish survey reaching consensus by the DELPHI technique was made. It was anonymously conducted by electronic mail in a first term to 25 national multidisciplinary experts in invasive fungal infections from five national scientific societies, including intensivists, anesthesiologists, microbiologists, pharmacologists and infectious diseases specialists, who answered to 47 questions prepared by a coordination group after a strict review of the literature in the last five years. The educational objectives spanned five categories, including epidemiology, diagnostic tools, prediction rules, and treatment and de-escalation approaches. The level of agreement achieved among the panel experts in each item should exceed 75% to be selected. In a second term, after extracting recommendations from the selected items, a face to face meeting was performed where more than 80 specialists in a second round were invited to validate the preselected recommendations.

RESULTS

In the first term, 20 recommendations were preselected (Epidemiology 4, Scores 3, Diagnostic tools 4, Treatment 6 and De-escalation approaches 3). After the second round, the following 12 were validated: (1) Epidemiology (2 recommendations): think about candidiasis in your Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and do not forget that non-Candida albicans-Candida species also exist. (2) Diagnostic tools (4 recommendations): blood cultures should be performed under suspicion every 2-3 days and, if positive, every 3 days until obtaining the first negative result. Obtain sterile fluid and tissue, if possible (direct examination of the sample is important). Use non-culture based methods as microbiological tools, whenever possible. Determination of antifungal susceptibility is mandatory. (3) Scores (1 recommendation): as screening tool, use the Candida Score and determine multicolonization in high risk patients. (4) Treatment (4 recommendations): start early. Choose echinocandins. Withdraw any central venous catheter. Fundoscopy is needed. (5) De-escalation (1 recommendation): only applied when knowing susceptibility determinations and after 3 days of clinical stability. The higher rate of agreement was achieved in the optimization of microbiological tools and the withdrawal of the catheter, whereas the lower rate corresponded to de-escalation therapy and the use of scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients requires the application of a broad range of knowledge and skills that we summarize in our recommendations. These recommendations may help to identify the potential patients, standardize their global management and improve their outcomes, based on the DELPHI methodology.

Épico Project. Development of educational recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients

BACKGROUND

Although there has been an improved management of invasive candidiasis in the last decade, controversial issues still remain, especially in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

AIMS

We sought to identify the core clinical knowledge and to achieve high level agreement recommendations required to care for critically ill adult patients with invasive candidiasis.

METHODS

A prospective Spanish survey reaching consensus by the DELPHI technique was made. It was anonymously conducted by electronic mail in a first term to 25 national multidisciplinary experts in invasive fungal infections from five national scientific societies, including intensivists, anesthesiologists, microbiologists, pharmacologists and infectious diseases specialists, who answered to 47 questions prepared by a coordination group after a strict review of the literature in the last five years. The educational objectives spanned five categories, including epidemiology, diagnostic tools, prediction rules, and treatment and de-escalation approaches. The level of agreement achieved among the panel experts in each item should exceed 75% to be selected. In a second term, after extracting recommendations from the selected items, a face to face meeting was performed where more than 80 specialists in a second round were invited to validate the preselected recommendations.

RESULTS

In the first term, 20 recommendations were preselected (Epidemiology 4, Scores 3, Diagnostic tools 4, Treatment 6 and De-escalation approaches 3). After the second round, the following 12 were validated: (1) Epidemiology (2 recommendations): think about candidiasis in your Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and do not forget that non-Candida albicans-Candida species also exist. (2) Diagnostic tools (4 recommendations): blood cultures should be performed under suspicion every 2-3 days and, if positive, every 3 days until obtaining the first negative result. Obtain sterile fluid and tissue, if possible (direct examination of the sample is important). Use non-culture based methods as microbiological tools, whenever possible. Determination of antifungal susceptibility is mandatory. (3) Scores (1 recommendation): as screening tool, use the Candida Score and determine multicolonization in high risk patients. (4) Treatment (4 recommendations): start early. Choose echinocandins. Withdraw any central venous catheter. Fundoscopy is needed. (5) De-escalation (1 recommendation): only applied when knowing susceptibility determinations and after 3 days of clinical stability. The higher rate of agreement was achieved in the optimization of microbiological tools and the withdrawal of the catheter, whereas the lower rate corresponded to de-escalation therapy and the use of scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients requires the application of a broad range of knowledge and skills that we summarize in our recommendations. These recommendations may help to identify the potential patients, standardize their global management and improve their outcomes, based on the DELPHI methodology.