Disseminated candidiasis: a comparison of two immunologic techniques in the diagnosis.

Eighty-five subjects were tested for the presence of circulating candidal antigen (CAg) and anti-candidal antibody (CAb) using both an enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIE). The 72 studied controls included laboratory volunteers; hospitalized patients without evidence of infection; febrile hospitalized patients without evidence of candidiasis; and patients with superficial candidiasis and candiduria. The control subjects were compared with 13 patients with proven disseminated candidal infection (disease prevalence = 15%). The ELISA CAb test was of greater individual sensitivity (92%) in separating patients with systemic candidiasis from all controls combined than the ELISA CAg, CIE CAg, or CIE CAb test (61%, 15%, 69%, respectively). The CIE CAg test, though specific (100%), was insensitive. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were generally enhanced by employing combinations of tests. Sera from patients with disseminated candidiasis were much more likely to yield a positive result by two or more serologic tests than were control sera (p = less than 0.0004). The sensitivity of combinations ranged from 15% to 92%. The specificity of combinations ranged from 21% to 100%. The predictive value positive of combinations test ranged from 40% to 100%. Predictive value negative of combinations ranged from 69% to 98%. Patients with a variety of superficial and deep candidal infections apparently have detectable circulating CAb and/or CAg. The ELISA CAb test was superior to the other tests in identifying patients with disseminated candidiasis. Combinations of serologic tests may be superior to individual tests in the diagnosis or exclusion of serious disease due to Candida albicans.

Abdominal pain, atherosclerosis, and atrial fibrillation. The case for mesenteric ischemia.

DT, a 63-year-old white male with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and severe peripheral vascular disease, was admitted with a five-day history of vague abdominal pain and diarrhea. On the day of admission he vomited three times, was noted to have a bloody stool, and came to the emergency room. DT denied hematemesis, fever, or chills. He had bilateral leg amputations and had sustained three myocardial infarctions, the last one 15 months before this admission. He had never experienced symptoms of abdominal angina. Of significance was his history of congestive heart failure, mitral regurgitation, and atrial fibrillation. His medications on admission included digoxin 0.25mg per day, furosemide 40mg per day, and NPH insulin 15 units per day. On admission to the hospital his oral temperature was 38 degrees C, pulse was 90/min, respiratory rate was 24/min, and blood pressure was 134/80mmHg. Abdominal examination revealed a distended abdomen with hypoactive bowel sounds and mild tenderness. Chest x ray revealed cardiomegaly. The electrocardiogram demonstrated atrial fibrillation. A plain film of the abdomen was positive for gallstones and edema of the bowel wall (thumb-printing). Laboratory results included blood urea nitrogen 48mg%, creatinine 1.2mg%, hemoglobin 18g/dl, and hematocrit 52.9%. White blood cell count was 11,900 cells/cc with 33% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, 47% bands, 8% lymphocytes, 11% monocytes, and 1% atypical lymphocytes. The prime considerations for differential diagnosis were mesenteric ischemia and infectious gastroenteritis. While it was appreciated that mesenteric ischemia, if present, might warrant surgical intervention, the risk of anesthesia itself in this patient was felt by his attending physicians to exceed 30%. Furthermore, the clinical findings were only "suggestive" of mesenteric eschemia. They were certainly not "diagnostic." In view of this dilemma, a consultation with the Division of Clinical Decision Making was requested.