What´s new in intraabdominal candidiasis in critically ill patients, a review.

A high prevalence of invasive candidiasis has been reported in recent years. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit are at the highest risk for invasive candidiasis, mostly due to the severity of their disease, immune-suppressive states, prolonged length of stay, broad-spectrum antibiotics, septic shock, and Candida colonization. Intraabdominal candidiasis comprises a range of clinical manifestations, from just the suspicion based on clinical scenario to fever, leukocytosis, increase in biomarkers to the isolation of the responsible microorganism. In critically ill patients with IAC prompt treatment and adequate source control remains the ultimate goal.

Association between source control and mortality in 258 patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis: a retrospective multi-centric analysis comparing intensive care versus surgical wards in Spain.

Early empiric therapy and adequate resuscitation have been identified as main predictors of outcome in patients with candidemia or bacteremia. Moreover, source control is a major determinant in infectious sites when feasible, as a main technique to reduce microbiological burden. A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study was performed at surgical wards and intensive care units (ICU) of three University Hospitals in Spain between 2010 and 2014, with the aim of improving understanding of the interaction between source control, early antifungal therapy, and use of vasoactives in patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis (IAC). Source control was defined as all physical actions taken to control a focus of infection and reduce the favorable conditions that promote microorganism growth or that maintain the impairment of host defenses. Two hundred and fifty-eight patients with IAC were identified. Sixty-one patients were at ICU for diagnosis. Mortality was higher in the ICU group compared to what was documented for the non-ICU group (35 % vs 19.5 %, p = 0011). Adequate source control within 48 h of diagnosis was achieved in 60 % of the cohort. In multivariate analysis, inadequate source control was identified as the only common risk factor for 30-day mortality in both groups (ICU group OR: 13.78 (95% CI: 2.60-72.9, p = 0.002) and non-ICU group OR: 6.53 (95% CI: 2.56-16.61, p = <0.001). The population receiving both adequate source control and adequate antifungal treatment was the one associated with a higher survival rate, in both the ICU and surgical groups. Source control remains a key element in IAC, inside and outside the intensive care unit. Early antifungal treatment among ICU patients was associated with lower mortality.

Predictors of choice of initial antifungal treatment in intraabdominal candidiasis.

Intraabdominal candidiasis (IAC) is the second most frequent form of invasive candidiasis, and is associated with high mortality rates. This study aims to identify current practices in initial antifungal treatment (IAT) in a real-world scenario and to define the predictors of the choice of echinocandins or azoles in IAC episodes. Secondary analysis was performed of a multinational retrospective cohort at 13 teaching hospitals in four countries (Italy, Greece, Spain and Brazil), over a 3-year period (2011-2013). IAC was identified in 481 patients, 323 of whom received antifungal therapy (classified as the treatment group). After excluding 13 patients given amphotericin B, the treatment group was further divided into the echinocandin group (209 patients; 64.7%) and the azole group (101 patients; 32.3%). Median APACHE II scores were significantly higher in the echinocandin group (p 0.013), but IAT did not differ significantly with regard to the Candida species involved. Logistic multivariate stepwise regression analysis, adjusted for centre effect, identified septic shock (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.54), APACHE II >15 (aOR 1.16) and presence in surgical ward at diagnosis (aOR 1.16) as the top three independent variables associated with an empirical echinocandin regimen. No differences in 30-day mortality were observed between groups. Echinocandin regimen was the first choice for IAT in patients with IAC. No statistical differences in mortality were observed between regimens, but echinocandins were administered to patients with more severe disease. Some disagreements were identified between current clinical guidelines and prescription of antifungals for IAC at the bedside, so further educational measures are required to optimize therapies.

Optimización de los aislamientos preventivos en una UCI polivalente mediante la aplicación de un plan de intervención / Optimization of pre-emptive isolations in a polyvalent ICU through implementation of an intervention strategy

ANTECEDENTES: El aislamiento preventivo consiste en la aplicación de medidas de aislamiento de contacto en pacientes con alta sospecha de estar colonizados por bacterias multirresistentes. OBJETIVO: Evaluar el impacto de un programa de intervención basado en la implantación de un Protocolo Consensuado de Aislamiento Preventivo (PCAP) al ingreso en una UCI polivalente de un hospital general. MÉTODO: Análisis comparativo de 2 cohortes de pacientes, una histórica, que incluye pacientes a los que se indicó el aislamiento preventivo a juicio del médico responsable (enero de 2010 a febrero de 2011), y otra prospectiva, que incluye los pacientes a los que se aplicó el PCAP (marzo a noviembre de 2011). El PCAP incluyó la identificación y divulgación de los criterios de aislamiento preventivo, la metodología a seguir en cuanto a toma de muestras, la valoración de los resultados y los criterios de retirada del aislamiento. La indicación del aislamiento fue realizada por el personal médico, y un equipo de enfermería realizó el seguimiento. Se definió el aislamiento preventivo como «adecuado» cuando en alguna de las muestras iniciales se identificó una bacteria multirresistente. Para la comparación de resultados entre los 2 periodos se utiliza la chi cuadrado para variables cualitativas y la t de Student para variables cuantitativas. Se aceptan como significativas diferencias con p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: De los 1.740 pacientes ingresados en UCI (1.055 en el primer periodo y 685 en el segundo) se indicó el aislamiento preventivo en 199 (11,4%), de los que 111 (10,5%) correspondieron a la fase histórica (grupo control) y 88 (12,8%) a la fase posterior a la implantación del PCAP (grupo de intervención). No se han detectado diferencias en la edad, el APACHE II y las características de los pacientes entre los 2 periodos. La aplicación del PCAP se ha relacionado con una disminución de los aislamientos preventivos no indicados (29,7 vs. 6,8%, p < 0,001), una disminución del tiempo en la solicitud de las muestras de vigilancia (1,56 vs. 0,37 días, p < 0,001), y una disminución de la duración en días del aislamiento (4,77 vs. 3,58 días, p < 0,001). En 44 pacientes (22,1%) en los que se indicó el aislamiento preventivo se identificaron más de una bacteria multirresistente, siendo la tasa de «aislamiento preventivo adecuado» del 19,8% en el primer periodo y del 25,0% en el segundo (p < 0,382). CONCLUSIONES: Tras la instauración de PCAP se han reducido significativamente los aislamientos preventivos no indicados correctamente, se ha disminuido el tiempo entre el aislamiento y la toma de muestras, además de reducirse la duración del aislamiento en los casos en que no es necesario, sin que haya aumentado la tasa de «aislamiento preventivo adecuado»

BACKGROUND: Pre-emptive isolation refers to the application of contact precaution measures in patients with strongly suspected colonization by multiresistant bacteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an intervention program involving the implementation of a consensus-based protocol of pre-emptive isolation (CPPI) on admission to a polyvalent ICU of a general hospital. METHODS: A comparative analysis of 2 patient cohorts was made: a historical cohort including patients in which pre-emptive isolation was established according to physician criterion prior to starting CPPI (from January 2010 to February 2011), and a prospective cohort including patients in which CPPI was implemented (from March to November 2011). CPPI included the identification and diffusion of pre-emptive isolation criteria, the definition of sampling methodology, the evaluation of results, and the development of criteria for discontinuation of pre-emptive isolation. Pre-emptive isolation was indicated by the medical staff, and follow-up was conducted by the nursing staff. Pre-emptive isolation was defined as "adequate" when at least one multiresistant bacteria was identified in any of the samples. Comparison of data between the 2 periods was made with the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Student t-test for quantitative variables. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Among the 1,740 patients admitted to the ICU (1,055 during the first period and 685 during the second period), pre-emptive isolation was indicated in 199 (11.4%); 111 (10.5%) of these subjects corresponded to the historical cohort (control group) and 88 (12.8%) to the posterior phase after the implementation of CPPI (intervention group). No differences were found in age, APACHE II score or patient characteristics between the 2 periods. The implementation of CPPI was related to decreases in non-indicated pre-emptive isolations (29.7 vs. 6.8%, P<.001), time of requesting surveillance cultures (1.56 vs. 0.37 days, P<.001), and days of duration of treatment (4.77 vs. 3.58 days, P<.001). In 44 patients (22.1%) in which pre-emptive isolation was indicated, more than one multiresistant bacteria was identified, with an "adequate pre-emptive isolation rate” of 19.8% in the first period and 25.0% in the second period (P<.382). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of CPPI resulted in a significant decrease in pre-emptive isolations which were not indicated correctly, a decrease in the time elapsed between isolation and collection of samples, and a decrease in the duration of isolation measures in cases in which isolation was unnecessary, without increasing the rate of "adequate pre-emptive isolation"

Optimization of pre-emptive isolations in a polyvalent ICU through implementation of an intervention strategy.

BACKGROUND: Pre-emptive isolation refers to the application of contact precaution measures in patients with strongly suspected colonization by multiresistant bacteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an intervention program involving the implementation of a consensus-based protocol of pre-emptive isolation (CPPI) on admission to a polyvalent ICU of a general hospital. METHODS: A comparative analysis of 2 patient cohorts was made: a historical cohort including patients in which pre-emptive isolation was established according to physician criterion prior to starting CPPI (from January 2010 to February 2011), and a prospective cohort including patients in which CPPI was implemented (from March to November 2011). CPPI included the identification and diffusion of pre-emptive isolation criteria, the definition of sampling methodology, the evaluation of results, and the development of criteria for discontinuation of pre-emptive isolation. Pre-emptive isolation was indicated by the medical staff, and follow-up was conducted by the nursing staff. Pre-emptive isolation was defined as "adequate" when at least one multiresistant bacteria was identified in any of the samples. Comparison of data between the 2 periods was made with the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Student t-test for quantitative variables. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. RESULTS: Among the 1,740 patients admitted to the ICU (1,055 during the first period and 685 during the second period), pre-emptive isolation was indicated in 199 (11.4%); 111 (10.5%) of these subjects corresponded to the historical cohort (control group) and 88 (12.8%) to the posterior phase after the implementation of CPPI (intervention group). No differences were found in age, APACHE II score or patient characteristics between the 2 periods. The implementation of CPPI was related to decreases in non-indicated pre-emptive isolations (29.7 vs. 6.8%, P<.001), time of requesting surveillance cultures (1.56 vs. 0.37 days, P<.001), and days of duration of treatment (4.77 vs. 3.58 days, P<.001). In 44 patients (22.1%) in which pre-emptive isolation was indicated, more than one multiresistant bacteria was identified, with an "adequate pre-emptive isolation rate" of 19.8% in the first period and 25.0% in the second period (P<.382). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of CPPI resulted in a significant decrease in pre-emptive isolations which were not indicated correctly, a decrease in the time elapsed between isolation and collection of samples, and a decrease in the duration of isolation measures in cases in which isolation was unnecessary, without increasing the rate of "adequate pre-emptive isolation".