Buscar en
Revista Iberoamericana de Micología
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Iberoamericana de Micología EPICO 3.0. Recommendations on invasive candidiasis in patients with complicated ...
Información de la revista
Vol. 33. Núm. 4.
Páginas 196-205 (Octubre - Diciembre 2016)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
2388
Vol. 33. Núm. 4.
Páginas 196-205 (Octubre - Diciembre 2016)
Special article
DOI: 10.1016/j.riam.2016.02.003
Acceso a texto completo
EPICO 3.0. Recommendations on invasive candidiasis in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection and surgical patients with ICU extended stay
EPICO 3.0. Recomendaciones para el manejo de la candidiasis invasiva en pacientes críticos con infección intraabdominal complicada y pacientes quirúrgicos de larga estancia en la UCI
Visitas
...
Emilio Masedaa,
Autor para correspondencia
emaseda.hulp@salud.madrid.org

Corresponding author.
, Alejandro H. Rodríguezb, Gerardo Aguilarc, Javier Pemánd, Rafael Zaragozae, Ricard Ferrerf, Pedro Llinaresg, Santiago Grauh, EPICO Project Group 1
a Servicio de Anestesiología, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
b Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario de Tarragona Joan XXIII/URV/IISPV/CIBERES, Spain
c Servicio de Anestesia y Reanimación, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Spain
d Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario La Fe de Valencia, Spain
e Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Vall D’Hebron, Spain
f Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Mútua de Terrassa, Spain
g Unidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, Spain
h Servicio de Farmacia, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
Contenido relaccionado
Rev Iberoam Micol. 2017;34:6110.1016/j.riam.2017.02.002
Emilio Maseda, Alejandro H. Rodríguez, Gerardo Aguilar, Javier Pemán, Rafael Zaragoza, Ricard Ferrer, Pedro Llinares, Santiago Grau
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (2)
Abstract
Background

Although in the last decade the management of invasive fungal infections has improved, a number of controversies persist regarding the management of complicated intra-abdominal infection and surgical extended length-of-stay (LOS) patients in intensive care unit (ICU).

Aims

To identify the essential clinical knowledge and elaborate a set of recommendations, with a high level of consensus, necessary for the management of postsurgical patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection and surgical patients with ICU extended stay.

Methods

A Spanish prospective questionnaire, which measures consensus through the Delphi technique, was anonymously answered and e-mailed by 30 multidisciplinary national experts, all of them specialists in fungal invasive infections from six scientific national societies; these experts were intensivists, anesthesiologists, microbiologists, pharmacologists and specialists in infectious diseases. They answered 11 questions drafted by the coordination group after conducting a thorough review of the literature published in the last few years. For a category to be selected, the level of agreement among the experts in each should be equal to or greater than 70%. In a second round, 73 specialists attended a face-to-face meeting which was held after extracting recommendations from the chosen topics and in which they validated the pre-selected recommendations and derived algorithm.

Results

After the second Delphi round, the following 11 recommendations with high degree of consensus were validated. For “surgical patients” seven recommendations were validated: (1) risk factors for invasive candidiasis (IC), (2) usefulness of blood culture and direct examination of abdominal fluid to start empirical treatment; (3) PCR for treatment discontinuation; (4) start antifungal treatment in patients with anastomotic leaks; (5) usefulness of Candida score (CS) but not (6) the Dupont score for initiating antifungal therapy in the event of anastomotic leakage or tertiary peritonitis, and (7) the administration of echinocandins as first line treatment in this special population. For “surgical ICU extended LOS patients” four recommendations were validated: (1) risk factors for IC, (2) presence of multi-colonization by Candida as a required variable of the CS, (3) starting antifungal treatment with CS4, and (4) to perform non-culture-based microbiological techniques in stable septic patients without evident focus.

Conclusions

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

Keywords:
Complicated intra-abdominal infection
Postoperative surgical infections
Candida peritonitis
Invasive candidiasis
Candidiasis diagnosis
Resumen
Antecedentes

Aunque en la última década se ha observado un mejor control de la infección fúngica invasiva, todavía existen numerosas controversias en el manejo del paciente posquirúrgico con infección intraabdominal complicada y del paciente quirúrgico de larga estancia en UCI.

Objetivos

Identificar los principales conocimientos clínicos necesarios y elaborar recomendaciones con un alto nivel de consenso para el tratamiento del paciente posquirúrgico con infección intraabdominal complicada y del paciente quirúrgico de larga estancia en UCI.

Métodos

Se realizó un cuestionario español prospectivo que mide el grado de consenso mediante la técnica Delphi. Dicho cuestionario fue realizado de forma anónima y por correo electrónico por 30 expertos multidisciplinarios nacionales, especialistas en infecciones fúngicas invasivas, de 6 sociedades científicas nacionales. Los expertos incluían intensivistas, anestesistas, microbiólogos, farmacólogos y especialistas en enfermedades infecciosas que respondieron a 11 preguntas preparadas por el grupo de coordinación, preguntas que fueron confeccionadas tras una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura de los últimos años. El grado de acuerdo alcanzado entre los expertos en cada una de las categorías debía ser igual o superior al 70% para redactar una recomendación. En un segundo término, después de extraer las recomendaciones de los temas seleccionados, se celebró una reunión presencial con 73 especialistas y se les solicitó la validación de las recomendaciones preseleccionadas y de los algoritmos derivados de estas.

Resultados

Concluida la segunda ronda se validaron 11 recomendaciones con un elevado grado de consenso. Para los pacientes con infección intraabdominal complicada se validaron 7 recomendaciones: 1) factores de riesgo para la candidiasis invasiva; 2) utilidad del hemocultivo y del examen directo del líquido abdominal para iniciar tratamiento empírico; 3) PCR para la discontinuación del tratamiento; 4) inicio de tratamiento antifúngico en pacientes con dehiscencia de sutura anastomótica; 5) utilidad del Candida Score; 6) no utilidad de la escala de Dupont para el inicio de tratamiento antifúngico en caso de dehiscencia de sutura anastomótica o peritonitis terciaria, y 7) administración de equinocandinas como primera opción de tratamiento para esta población específica. Para los pacientes quirúrgicos de larga estancia en la UCI se validaron 4 recomendaciones: 1) factores de riesgo para candidiasis invasiva; 2) presencia de multicolonización por Candida como variable requerida del Candida Score; 3) inicio de tratamiento antifúngico si Candida Score4, y 4) determinación de técnicas microbiológicas no basadas en el cultivo en el paciente estable con sepsis sin foco evidente.

Conclusiones

El diagnóstico y abordaje de la candidiasis invasiva en los pacientes quirúrgicos en UCI requiere de la aplicación del amplio conocimiento y habilidades establecidas en nuestras recomendaciones. Estas recomendaciones, basadas en la metodología Delphi, pueden ayudar a identificar a los potenciales pacientes, estandarizar su manejo en conjunto y mejorar sus resultados clínicos.

Palabras clave:
Infección intraabdominal complicada
Infecciones posquirúrgicas
Peritonitis candidiásica
Candidiasis invasiva
Diagnóstico de candidiasis
Texto completo

The approach to invasive fungal infection (IFI) is still nowadays a relevant challenge in Intensive Care Units (ICUs).37 The reason for this is an increasing incidence of IFI in the ICUs in the last years,4 as well as, in comparison with the rest of the hospital services, a higher complexity of its diagnosis and treatment in critically-ill patients.42

The most frequent IFI in ICUs is invasive candidiasis (IC), especially candidemia and Candida peritonitis, and implies a mortality factor independent from the mortality rate in critically-ill patients.2,38 ICU and surgery wards are the services with the highest incidence of candidemia, summing up to two-thirds of every episode detected in hospital centers.23

The gastrointestinal tract is, together with the skin, the most frequent entrance for Candida infection.7 Multi-colonization is considered an essential factor for the IC pathogenesis.40 Several studies have identified different risk factors for the development of nosocomial or community-acquired IC34,39 in patients undergoing surgery. In the same way, enough evidence has been gathered to establish a universal empirical therapy for postsurgical patients, which is the case of high-risk patients with secondary peritonitis acquired in the community.33

Microbiological diagnostic techniques,22 not based on cultures and Candida Score (CS)19 may be useful for IFI diagnoses and, therefore, for the decision to prescribe antifungal treatment for postsurgical patients and ICU extended length-of-stay (LOS) patients.

Our primary goal is to analyze the current situation regarding the management of IC in postsurgical and surgical ICU extended LOS patients to obtain a set of therapeutic recommendations for different scenarios through the DELPHI methodology.

Material and methods

A panel (coordinator group) including 7 specialists from six scientific societies was formed – Spanish Society of Mycology (AEM), as the promoter; Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC); Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Reanimation (SEDAR); Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Care and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC); Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ); Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacies (SEFH) – all with extensive experience in the treatment of critically-ill patients. They were responsible for developing a questionnaire after conducting a thorough review of the existing literature, as was done in the two previous editions of this project.43,44

An “expert panel” was made up of 30 specialists from different geographic locations in our country from six scientific societies involved in this research. The criteria followed for their inclusion in the panel were their experience in the investigation of IFI, as well as their expertise in the management of postsurgical patients and surgical extended LOS patients in ICUs. They were requested to answer a questionnaire drafted by the seven coordinators responsible for this research, as was done in the two previous editions of this project.43,44

In a second round, and after the elaboration of the resulting recommendations by the coordinators’ group, a second analysis was requested in a face-to-face meeting, in which 73 specialists from all around the country who care for postsurgical and surgical ICU extended LOS patients, validated the pre-selected recommendations and the derived algorithm through a voting procedure.

The Delphi methodology was used for the development of this study to optimize the consultation process of the 30 panel members. More specifically, thanks to the Delphi methodology, we were able to learn the groups’ opinions; not only that of a given individual, but the opinion of each of the experts in different areas of information suggested by the coordinators. The level of consensus required to make a recommendation was equal or higher than 70% (21 out of 30) in Top 4 (score of 7 or more points) by all of the experts consulted in each question. A total of 10 questions, all posed by the coordinators (Annex 1) were evaluated by the experts using a metric scale.

A total of 11 questions, prepared by the coordinators (Annex 1) were distributed in two sections: postsurgical patient section, 7 questions (developed by E.M and G.A); and surgical ICU extended LOS patients, 4 questions (developed by A.R and J.P).

The study methodology was based on the development of only one phase aimed to discover the level of consensus of the different questions. To meet this goal, on May 19th and 26th, 2014, 30 specialists (Annex 2) participating in the research anonymously answered the online questionnaire that included 11 questions. The coordinators responsible for the systematic research of the literature for the development of the questions, did not answer the questionnaire.

Thereafter, as mentioned above, recommendations and an algorithm were produced and validated by 73 experts in a face-to-face meeting held on September 25th, 2014 (Annex 3).

ResultsPatients with complicated intra-abdominal infection

1. Agreement regarding the variables considered risk factors to initiate early empirical antifungal treatment in patients with community-acquired peritonitis, located in the upper GI tract (above the angle of Treitz).

Answers provided by the coordinators: Recent or current immunosuppressive therapy, pancreatic neoplasm, severe sepsis or septic shock, previous antibiotic treatment (5 days), upper GI neoplasm, and chronic PPT-antiH2 treatment.

Rationale. Published literature on community-acquired peritonitis caused in the upper GI tract have not determined a precise distinction of risk factors to initiate early/empirical antifungal therapy.6,27,35 In fact, to date there is still no evidence to support the use of empirical antifungal therapy in patients with secondary community-acquired peritonitis, including high-risk patients.15,31,33 This is why the recommendation deriving from the experts’ opinions have not determined a precise distinction of risk factors to initiate early/empirical antifungal therapy.6,27,35 Currently, there is not enough evidence to support empirical antifungal therapy in patients with secondary community-acquired peritonitis.

The panel members agreed to consider the administration of empirical/early antifungal therapy in this population in every situation proposed by the coordinators. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 points in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 24 out of the 28 specialists (85.7%) granted 7 or more points to pancreatic neoplasm and recent or current immunosuppressive therapy; 23 experts (82.1%) agreed in the case of upper gastrointestinal neoplasm, previous antibiotic therapy during 5 or more days and severe sepsis or septic shock; also 21 specialists (75%) agreed in the event of chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPTs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (antiH2). There was a high level of agreement for every variable (Top 470%).

2. Agreement on the microbiological diagnostic techniques based on their positive predictive value and their possible usefulness to initiate empirical therapy in patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis.

Answers provided by the coordinators: blood culture, direct examination of abdominal fluid, (13)-β-D-glucan, and PCR.

Rationale. The armamentarium available for IC diagnosis includes direct detection and culture and indirect detection in which surrogate markers and polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay are used. The sensitivity of blood cultures is far from ideal with a sensitivity of 21–71% according to autopsy studies.9 Published studies confirm that the polymerase chain reaction and the (13)-β-D-glucan quantification test are useful for the diagnosis of IC.29 The meta-analysis published by Karageorgopoulos et al., which is based on 16 studies, proves that the (13)-β-D-glucan test presents a sensitivity of 76.8% for the diagnosis of probable and proven infections caused by Candida.17 The study by Tissot et al., which includes critically-ill surgical patients with a high risk, confirms that the (13)-β-D-glucan test is superior to the colonization index and to the CS for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal candidiasis.24,36 The study published by Fortún et al., which was developed including patients suffering from deep tissue IC, established the positive predictive value (PPV) of a multiplex real-time PCR in 92.8%,14 a rate significantly superior to (13)-β-D-glucan.

The great majority of the experts (82.1%) agreed to point out the usefulness of the positive predictive value of blood cultures and the direct examination of abdominal fluids when empirical/antifungal treatment is administered in patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 23 out of 28 specialists granted 7 or more points to both microbiological diagnostic techniques in this scenario. Thus, a consensual agreement was established (Top 470%).

In contrast, no consensus was reached regarding the validation of (13)-β-D-glucan, nor that of the PCR, which were only granted 7 or more points by 19 specialists (67.9%) and 18 specialists (64.3%), respectively out of the 28 experts.

3. Agreement on the microbiological diagnostic techniques based on their negative predictive value (NPV) and their possible usefulness to discontinue empirical/early antifungal therapy in patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis.

Answers provided by the coordinators: blood culture, direct examination of the abdominal fluid, (13)-β-D-glucan, and PCR.

Rationale. In the Tissot et al. study, the NPV of the (13)-β-D-glucan test in patients with gastrointestinal recurring perforation was higher than the NPV of the CS and also higher than the NPV of the colonization index in surgical critically-ill patients with a high-risk for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal candidiasis.36 In the study by Fortún et al., which included patients with deep tissue IC, the NPV of a multiplex real-time PCR was set in 98.7%, which was superior to (13)-β-D-glucan (94%).14 Tests showing a high NPV are useful for the physician to decide whether or not to discontinue antifungal therapy.29

The great majority of the panel (81.5%) agreed on validating the usefulness of the PCR negative predictive value for the discontinuation of empirical/early treatment in this population. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 points in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 22 out of 27 specialists granted 7 or more points to the convenience of the microbiological diagnostic technique in this situation, therefore a consensual agreement was reached (Top 470%).

In contrast, the NPV of (13)-β-D-glucan, as well as the direct examination of abdominal fluid and the blood culture, were respectively thought to be useful by 18 (66.7%), 17 (63%) and 14 (51.9%) out of a total of 27 specialists, thus no consensus was achieved for any of the referred techniques (Top 4<70%).

4. Agreement on the systematic initiation of empirical/early antifungal treatment in patients with anastomotic leakage (independent of the CS).

Rationale. Surgery, and especially abdominal surgery, is considered a risk factor in the CS, a scale for the detection of patients with risk of IC according to different risk factors.19 In this context, even though the management of patients with anastomotic leakage is not included in the CS, a number of scientific evidences prove that postsurgical peritonitis is associated to IC, particularly in patients with recurring gastrointestinal perforation.8,15,27

Most of the experienced consultants (75%) agreed on the need to initiate empirical/early antifungal treatment in every patient with anastomotic leakage, regardless of the presence of IC. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 points, in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 21 out of the 28 participants granted 7 or more points to the need for the systematic administration of a treatment in this situation. Thus, a high consensus was reached (Top 470%).

5. Agreement on the usefulness of the CS to decide on an empirical/early antifungal treatment in patients with anastomotic leaks, and/or tertiary peritonitis.

Rationale. The CS is not a specific scale for IC in patients with post-operative peritonitis. In fact, in most patients with suture dehiscence, the rate of Candida colonization is unknown. Nevertheless, surgery, and very specially, abdominal surgery, is considered a risk factor for IC in the CS.19 Thus, the CS may be useful to help the physician decide whether or not to start empirical/early antifungal treatment in patients with anastomotic leakage and/or tertiary peritonitis.8,15,26

The vast majority of the board members (82%) agreed to consider the use of the CS to determine empirical/early antifungal therapy useful in this population. Specifically, and using a 0–10 point scale where 10 represents the highest degree of agreement, 23 out of the 28 participants awarded 7 or more points to the usefulness of the CS in this situation, establishing a consensus of agreement (Top 470).

6. Agreement on the usefulness of specific scores, such as Dupont's, to decide on the empirical/early antifungal treatment in patients with intra-abdominal sepsis.

Rationale. Nowadays, clinicians still do not possess the tools which enable them to determine if the presence of Candida in a multi-bacterial culture of the intra-abdominal fluid must be considered significant. In this context, the use of specific scales, such as the one developed by Dupont et al., could be helpful for the clinician to decide whether or not to initiate an antifungal treatment while waiting for fungal results.12 Nevertheless, these scales need to be validated by large multi-centric studies.13,26

Only 14 out of the 28 board members (50%) considered that specific scores for intra-abdominal candidiasis are useful to decide on administering an empirical/early antifungal therapy, thus consensus was not reached (Top 4<70%).

7. Agreement on the prescription of the following antifungal drugs as first-line empirical/early treatment in unstable patients with intra-abdominal infection and/or with serum lactate >3mmol/l, previous azoles intake and/or continuous renal replacement therapy.

Answers provided by the coordinators: fluconazole, amphotericin lipid B complex, liposomal amphotericin B, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin.

Rationale. The clinical practical guide for IC diagnosis and treatment in non-neutropenic adult patients, which was published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in 2012, recommends echinocandin therapy as the first-line antifungal treatment, with an AI level of evidence.10 However, the ESCMID guide does not include a specific recommendation for intra-abdominal candidiasis. The consensus document by Bassetti et al. recommends the administration of echinocandins or liposomal amphotericin B as a first-line treatment for intra-abdominal candidiasis, with an AI level of evidence.5

The great majority of experts agreed to administer an echinocandin (micafungin, anidulafungin, caspofungin) as a first-line treatment in this population. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 26 out of the 28 specialists (92.9%) granted 7 or more points to the administration of micafungin in this situation, an assessment granted by (89.3%) in the case of anidulafungin and caspofungin.

In contrast, although all specialists stated not to administer fluconazole as a first-line antifungal treatment in this situation, a consensus was not reached (Top 4<70%) on the convenience to use liposomal amphotericin B (17 answers with 7 or more points; Top 4: 60.7%) or amphotericin lipid B complex (8; 28.6%) in this patient population.

Surgical patients with ICU extended stay

1. Agreement on the variables considered as risk factors for IC in abdominal surgical patients.

Answers provided by the coordinators: parenteral nutrition, patients with extended burns, high severity (APACHE II25 points), upper abdominal surgery (above the angle of Treitz), broad-spectrum antibiotic intake for more than 72h, extended hospitalization (>10 days in ICU or hospital), presence of solid neoplasm, and lower abdominal surgery.

Rationale. IC in critically-ill patients is relatively frequent (17%). Due to the lack of specific signs/symptoms of infection, the complexity of the patients and the insidious presentation of the clinical manifestations, it is difficult to diagnose.15 Several studies published in scientific literature identified a wide variety of IC risk factors in non-immunocompromised patients,28,41 even though their role has not yet been clearly determined.11

The variables that reached consensus (Top 470%) were: Parenteral nutrition (26 answers in Top 4, 92.9% of all answers); high level of severity (APACHE II>25 points) (24; 85.7%); extended hospitalization >10 days (ICU or hospital) (24; 85.7%); receiving broad spectrum antibiotics for more than 72h (24; 85.7%); upper abdominal surgery (above the angle of Treitz) (24; 85.7%); and the presence of solid neoplasm (22; 78.6%).

The great majority of specialists (96.4%) agreed on considering parenteral nutrition an IC risk factor in patients with abdominal surgery. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 points in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 24 out of 28 participants granted 7 or more points, thus a consensual agreement was reached (Top 470%). Consensus was also reached when determining other IC risk factors in this population: patients with extended burns (26 answers with 7 or more points; Top 4: 92.9%), high severity, (25; 89.3%), extended hospitalization (24; 85.7%), treatment with a broad-spectrum antibiotic for more than 72h (24; 85.7%), upper abdominal surgery (24; 85.7%), and the presence of solid neoplasm (22; 78.6%). Contrarily, a consensus (Top 4<70%) was not reached on defining lower abdominal surgery (22; 78.6%) as a risk factor in this population.

2. Agreement on the need to consider the presence of multi-colonization as a mandatory variable of the CS to prescribe an early antifungal treatment.

Rationale. Validated scales for the detection of patients with risk of suffering IC include a wider variety of risk factors.16 Although there are several authors who think that multi-colonization by Candida is not a significant variable for the detection of IC, a number of studies have proven that it is a very relevant clinical condition in this group of patients.19,20,43

Most of the panel members (75%) agreed on considering the presence of multi-colonization necessary to prescribe an antifungal treatment in this situation. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10, in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 21 out of 28 participants granted 7 or more points to this regard, so a consensual agreement was established (Top 470%).

3. Agreement on initiating fungal treatment based on the following results of the CS in stable (no shock) post-operative abdominal surgery patients, IC risk factors and sepsis with no evident focus.

Answers provided by the coordinators: CS=3, CS=4, and CS=5.

Rationale. Several studies have proven the usefulness of the CS, as a system of risk classification validated for suspicion of IC or candidemia. It assists in making a decision on the prescription of an early treatment in patients hospitalized in the ICU with specific risk factors.1,19 The study by Leon et al. revealed an IC incidence of 13.8% with CS>3, whereas with CS<3 the incidence rate was only 2.3%.20 This incidence progressively increases to 16.8% (RR=7.3), with CS=4 and up to 23.6% (RR=10.3), with CS=5.21

The great majority of the consulted experts agreed on the need to initiate fungal treatment in this population when the CS punctuation is higher than 3. Specifically, on a scale of 0–10 points in which 10 stands for the highest level of agreement, 25 out of 28 specialists (89.3%) granted 7 or more points to the need to administer the treatment when the CS score equals 5, an assessment sustained by 24 experts (85.7%) in the case of CS=4. In contrast, only 8 panel members (28.6%) agreed to administer the treatment to patients with CS=3, thus no consensus was reached (Top 4<70%).

4. Agreement on the performance of the following actions in stable (no shock) post-operative abdominal surgery patients, IC risk factors and sepsis with no evident focus, CS=3 and high clinical suspicion.

Answers provided by the coordinators: determining non-culture-based microbiological techniques to diagnose IC, and initiating antifungal treatment in the event of a positive non-culture-based microbiological method.

Rationale. The mortality rate due to IC continues substantially high.15 Although the empirical and early administration of an antifungal treatment is associated with better survival, a great number of patients still receive unnecessary treatment, leading to potential toxicity and cost increase.18 The detection of antibodies or antigens-related to the components of the fungal wall- or of nucleic acids might improve early diagnosis and guide the treatment.3,17,25,30,32

Most experts agreed not only on the need to initiate antifungal treatment in the event of a positive result in any non-culture-based microbiological technique (26 out of 28 answers received 7 or more points; Top 4 92.2%), but also to carry out non-culture-based microbiological techniques to diagnose IC (24; 85.7%). Thus, a high consensual agreement on both statements was established (Top 470%).

Recommendations and algorithms

Once the results achieved with the Delphi methodology applied to the management of complicated intra-abdominal infection and surgical patients with ICU extended stay were obtained, the recommendations exhibited were extracted as conclusions. They are based on the questions which reached a consensus equal or higher than 70%. These recommendations and the derived algorithm (Figs. 1 and 2) were validated thereafter during a face-to-face meeting with the hospital experts.

Fig. 1.

Algorithm for surgical patient.

(0,39MB).
Fig. 2.

Algorithm for extended length-of-stay surgical patients.

(0,53MB).
Conflict of interest

This consensus has been sponsored by MSD Laboratories, Spain.

Annex 1
COORDINATORS

Rafael Zaragoza Crespo

Intensive Care Department, Dr. Peset University Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Ricard Ferrer Roca

Intensive Care Department, Vall d??Hebron University Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Alejandro Hugo Rodríguez

Intensive Care Department, Joan XXIII University Hospital. Tarragona, Spain

Emilio Maseda Garrido

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, La Paz University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Pedro Llinares Mondéjar

Infectious Diseases Department, A Coruña University Complex. A Coruña, Spain

Santiago Grau Cerrato

Pharmacy Department, Hospital del Mar. Barcelona, Spain

Annex 2
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERTS

José María Aguado García

Infectious Diseases Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Gerardo Aguilar Aguilar

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Valencia Clinical University Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Benito Almirante Gragera

Infectious Diseases Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Francisco Álvarez Lerma

Intensive Care Department, Hospital del Mar. Barcelona, Spain

César Aragón González

Intensive Care Department, Carlos Haya University Hospital. Málaga, Spain

María Izaskun Azcárate Egaña

Intensive Care Department, Donostia University Hospital. Donostia, Spain

Marcio Borges Sa

Sepsis Unit Coordinator, Son Llàtzer Hospital. Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Mercedes Bouzada Rodríguez

Anaesthesia, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy Department, University Hospital Clinic of Santiago. Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Juan Carlos del Pozo Laderas

Intensive Care Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital. Córdoba, Spain

Carmen Fariñas Álvarez

Intensive Care Department, Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital. Santander, Spain

Jesús Fortún Abete

Infectious Diseases Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Beatriz Galván Guijo

Intensive Care Department, La Paz University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

José Garnacho Montero

Intensive Care Department, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital. Sevilla, Spain

José Ignacio Gómez Herreras

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Valladolid Clinical University Hospital. Valladolid, Spain

Rafael Huarte Lacunza

Pharmacy Department, Miguel Servet University Hospital. Zaragoza, Spain

Cristóbal León Gil

Intensive Care Department, Valme University Hospital. Sevilla, Spain

Rafael León López

Intensive Care Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital. Córdoba, Spain

Patricia Muñoz García

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Department, Gregorio Marañón University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Jordi Nicolás Picó

Pharmacy Department, Son Llàtzer Hospital. Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Pedro Olaechea Astigarraga

Intensive Care Department, Galdakao Usansolo Hospital. Vizcaya, Spain

Javier Pemán García

Microbiology Unit, La Fe University and Polythecnic Hospital. Valencia, Spain

María Luisa Pérez del Molino Bernal

Microbiology and Parasitology Unit, Santiago de Compostela University Hospital Complex. Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Leonor Periañez Párraga

Pharmacy Department, Son Espases University Hospital. Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Guillermo Quindós Andrés

Microbiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Basque Country University. Vizcaya, Spain

Jesús Rico Feijoo

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Río Hortega University Hospital. Valladolid, Spain

María Rodríguez Mayo

Microbiology Unit, A Coruña University Hospital Complex. A Coruña, Spain

Eva Romá Sánchez

Pharmacy Department, La Fe University and Polythecnic Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Isabel Ruiz Camps

Infectious Diseases Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Miguel Salavert Lleti

Infectious Diseases Department, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Juan Carlos Valía Vera

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, General University Hospital Consortium. Valencia, Spain

Annex 3
HOSPITAL EXPERTS

César Aldecoa Álvarez-Santullano

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Río Hortega University Hospital. Valladolid, Spain

Rosa Ana Álvarez Fernández

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Asturias Central University Hospital. Asturias, Spain

Rocío Armero Ibáñez

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Doctor Peset University Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Fernando Armestar Rodríguez

Intensive Care Department, Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital. Badalona, Barcelona, Spain

Miguel Ángel Arribas Santamaría

Intensive Care Department, Arnau de Vilanova Hospital. Valencia, Spain

José Ignacio Ayestarán Rota

Intensive Care Department, Son Espases University Hospital. Palma de Mallorca, Spain

María Ángeles Ballesteros Sanz

Intensive Care Department, Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital. Santander, Spain

María José Bartolomé Pacheco

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital. Santander, Spain

Unai Bengoetxea Uriarte

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Basurto Hospital. Bilbao, Vizcaya, Spain

Eva Benveniste Pérez

Intensive Care Department, Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital. Badalona, Barcelona, Spain

José Blanquer Olivas

Intensive Care Department, Valencia Clinical University Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Felipe Bobillo del Amo

Intensive Care Department, San Carlos Clinical University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Ángel Caballero Sáez

Intensive Care Department, San Millán Hospital Complex- San Pedro Hospital. Logroño, La Rioja, Spain

Andrés Carrillo Alcaraz

Intensive Care Department, Morales Meseguer University General Hospital. Murcia, Spain

José Castaño Pérez

Intensive Care Department, Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital. Granada, Spain

Pedro Castro Rebollo

Intensive Care Department, Clínic i Provincial of Barcelona Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Milagros Cid Manzano

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Complex of Ourense University Hospital. Ourense, Spain

Belén Civantos Martín

Intensive Care Department, La Paz University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

María Victoria de la Torre Prados

Intensive Care Department, Virgen de la Victoria University Hospital. Málaga, Spain

David Domínguez García

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria University Hospital. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain

Juan Ramón Fernández Villanueva

Intensive Care Department, Complex of Santiago Compostela University Hospital. A Coruña, Spain

Rafael García Hernández

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Cádiz, Spain

Rafael Franco Llorente

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital. Granada, Spain

Luis Gajate Martín

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Emilio García Prieto

Intensive Care Department, Asturias Central University Hospital. Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

Pau Garro Martínez

Intensive Care Department, Granollers General Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Carolina Giménez-Esparza Vic

Intensive Care Department, Vega Baja Hospital. Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

Ricardo Gimeno Costa

Intensive Care Department, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Francisco Javier González de Molina Ortiz

Intensive Care Department, Mutua de Terrassa University Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Marta Gurpegui Puente

Intensive Care Department, Miguel Servet University Hospital. Zaragoza, Spain

María José Gutiérrez Fernández

Intensive Care Department, San Agustín Hospital. Avilés, Asturias, Spain

Joaquín Lobo Palanco

Intensive Care Department, Navarra Hospital Complex. Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

Mauro Loinaz Bordonabe

Intensive Care Department, Navarra Hospital Complex. Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

Esther María López Ramos

Intensive Care Department, Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital. Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

María Pilar Luque Gómez

Intensive Care Department, Lozano Blesa Clinic University Hospital. Zaragoza, Spain

Juan Francisco Machado Casas

Intensive Care Department, Jaén Hospital Complex. Jaén, Spain

José Miguel Marcos Vidal

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Virgen Blanca Hopital Complex. León, Spain

Fernando Maroto Monserrat

Intensive Care Department, San Juan de Dios del Aljarafe Hospital. Bormujos, Sevilla, Spain

Juan Carlos Martínez Cejudo

Intensive Care Department, Infanta Elena University Hospital. Huelva, Spain

María del Carmen Martínez Ramagge

Intensive Care Department, La Línea Hospital (AGSCampo of Gibraltar). La Línea de la Concepción, Cádiz, Spain

Ignacio Moreno Puigdollers

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Lorena Mouríz Fernández

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Lucus Augusti University Hospital. Lugo, Spain

Luis Alberto López Olaondo

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Navarra University Clinic. Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

Sergio Ossa Echeverri

Intensive Care Department, Burgos University Hospital. Burgos, Spain

Juan Carlos Pardo Talavera

Intensive Care Department, Reina Sofía General University Hospital. Murcia, Spain

Inés María Parejo Cabezas

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, San Pedro de Alcántara Hospital. Cáceres, Spain

Jorge Pereira Tamayo

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Álvaro Cunqueiro University Hospital. Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain

Miguel Ángel Pereira Loureiro

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Álvaro Cunqueiro University Hospital. Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain

Ana Pérez Carbonell

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Elche General University Hospital. Alicante, Spain

Marcos Pérez Carrasco

Intensive Care Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

Demetrio Pérez Civantos

Intensive Care Department, Infanta Cristina University Hospital. Badajoz, Spain

María José Pérez-Pedrero Sánchez-Belmonte

Intensive Care Department, Virgen de la Salud Hospital. Toledo, Spain

David Pestaña Lagunas

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Pedro Picatto Hernández

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Asturias Central University Hospital. Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

Rosa Poyo-Guerrero Lahoz

Intensive Care Department, Son Llàtzer Hospital. Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Luis Quecedo Gutiérrez

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, La Princesa University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Roberto Reig Valero

Intensive Care Department, Castellón General Hospital. Castellón, Spain

Manuel Rodríguez Carvajal

Intensive Care Department, Juan Ramón Jiménez Hospital. Huelva, Spain

Enrique Samsó Sabé

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Hospital del Mar. Barcelona, Spain

Catalina Sánchez Ramírez

Intensive Care Department, Doctor Negrín of Gran Canaria University Hospital. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

Margarita Sánchez Castilla

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Susana Sancho Chinesta

Intensive Care Department, Doctor Peset University Hospital. Valencia, Spain

Juan Carlos Sotillo Díaz

Intensive Care Department, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

José Manuel Soto Blanco

Intensive Care Department, San Cecilio University Hospital. Granada, Spain

Luis Suárez Gonzalo

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, La Paz University Hospital. Madrid, Spain

Teresa Tabuyo Bello

Intensive Care Department, A Coruña University Hospital. A Coruña, Spain

Eduardo Tamayo Gómez

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Valladolid Clinic University Hospital. Valladolid, Spain

Luis Mariano Tamayo Lomas

Intensive Care Department, Río Hortega University Hospital. Valladolid, Spain

Gonzalo Tamayo Medel

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Cruces University Hospital. Bilbao, Vizcaya, Spain

Vicente Torres Pedrós

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Son Espases University Hospital. Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Montserrat Vallverdú Vidal

Intensive Care Department, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital. Lleida, Spain

Marina Varela Durán

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Pontevedra University Hospital Complex. Pontevedra, Spain

Paula Vera Artazcoz

Intensive Care Department, Santa Creu i Sant Pau Hospital. Barcelona, Spain

María Elena Vilas Otero

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care, Álvaro Cunqueiro University Hospital. Pontevedra, Spain

References
[1]
J.M. Aguado, I. Ruiz-Camps, P. Muñoz, J. Mensa, B. Almirante, L. Vázquez, et al.
Grupo de Estudio de Micología Médica de la SEIMC (GEMICOMED). Guidelines for the treatment of Invasive Candidiasis and other yeasts. Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC). 2010 Update.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin, 29 (2011), pp. 345-361
[2]
B. Almirante, D. Rodríguez, B.J. Park, M. Cuenca-Estrella, A.M. Planes, M. Almela, et al.
Epidemiology and predictors of mortality in cases of Candida bloodstream infection: results from population-based surveillance, Barcelona, Spain, from 2002 to 2003.
J Clin Microbiol, 43 (2005), pp. 1829-1835
[3]
T. Avni, L. Leibovici, M. Paul.
PCR diagnosis of invasive candidiasis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Clin Microbiol, 49 (2011), pp. 665-670
[4]
S. Bajwa, A. Kulshrestha.
Fungal infections in intensive care unit: challenges in diagnosis and management.
Ann Med Health Sci Res, 3 (2013), pp. 238-244
[5]
M. Bassetti, M. Marchetti, A. Chakrabarti, S. Colizza, J. Garnacho-Montero, D.H. Kett, et al.
A research agenda on the management of intra-abdominal candidiasis: results from a consensus of multinational experts.
Intensive Care Med, 39 (2013), pp. 2092-2106
[6]
S. Blot, J.J. De Waele, D. Vogelaers.
Essentials for selecting antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections.
[7]
H.M. Blumberg, W.R. Jarvis, J.M. Soucie, J.E. Edwards, J.E. Patterson, M.A. Pfaller, et al.
Risk factors for candidal bloodstream infections in surgical intensive care unit patients: the NEMIS prospective multicenter study. The National Epidemiology of Mycosis Survey.
Clin Infect Dis, 33 (2001), pp. 177-186
[8]
Calandra T1, O. Marchetti.
Clinical trials of antifungal prophylaxis among patients undergoing surgery.
Clin Infect Dis, 39 (2004), pp. S185-S192
[9]
C.J. Clancy, M.H. Nguyen.
Finding the “missing 50%” of invasive candidiasis: how nonculture diagnostics will improve understanding of disease spectrum and transform patient care.
Clin Infect Dis, 56 (2013), pp. 1284-1292
[10]
O.A. Cornely, M. Bassetti, T. Calandra, J. Garbino, B.J. Kullberg, O. Lortholary, et al.
ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients.
Clin Microbiol Infect, 18 (2012), pp. 19-37
[11]
J. Delaloye, T. Calandra.
Invasive candidiasis as a cause of sepsis in the critically ill patient.
Virulence, 5 (2014), pp. 161-169
[12]
H. Dupont, A. Bourichon, C. Paugam-Burtz, J. Mantz, J.M. Desmonts.
Can yeast isolation in peritoneal fluid be predicted in intensive care unit patients with peritonitis?.
Crit Care Med, 31 (2003), pp. 752-757
[13]
P. Eggimann, L. Ostrosky-Zeichner.
Early antifungal intervention strategies in ICU patients.
Curr Opin Crit Care, 16 (2010), pp. 465-469
[14]
J. Fortún, Y. Meije, M.J. Buitrago, S. Gago, L. Bernal-Martinez, J. Pemán, et al.
Clinical validation of a multiplex real-time PCR assay for detection of invasive candidiasis in intensive care unit patients.
J Antimicrob Chemother, 69 (2014), pp. 3134-3141
[15]
X. Guirao, J. Arias, J.M. Badía, J.A. García-Rodríguez, J. Mensa, F. Álvarez-Lerma, et al.
Recomendaciones en el tratamiento antibiótico empírico de la infección intraabdominal.
Rev Esp Quimioter, 22 (2009), pp. 151-172
[16]
E.D. Hermsen, M.K. Zapapas, M. Maiefski, M.E. Rupp, A.G. Freifeld, A.C. Kalil.
Validation and comparison of clinical prediction rules for invasive candidiasis in intensive care unit patients: a matched case-control study.
Crit Care, 15 (2011), pp. R198
[17]
D.E. Karageorgopoulos, E.K. Vouloumanou, F. Ntziora, A. Michalopoulos, P.I. Rafailidis, M.E. Falagas.
β-d-glucan assay for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: a meta-analysis.
Clin Infect Dis, 52 (2011), pp. 750-770
[18]
C. León, L. Ostrosky-Zeichner, M. Schuster.
What's new in the clinical and diagnostic management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients.
Intensive Care Med, 40 (2014), pp. 808-819
[19]
C. León, S. Ruiz-Santana, P. Saavedra, B. Almirante, J. Nolla-Salas, F. Álvarez-Lerma, et al.
A bedside scoring system (“Candida score”) for early antifungal treatment in nonneutropenic critically ill patients with Candida colonization.
Crit Care Med, 34 (2006), pp. 730-737
[20]
C. León, S. Ruiz-Santana, P. Saavedra, B. Galván, A. Blanco, C. Castro, et al.
Usefulness of the “Candida score” for discriminating between Candida colonization and invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter study.
Crit Care Med, 37 (2009), pp. 1624-1633
[21]
G. Leroy, F. Lambiotte, D. Thévenin, C. Lemaire, E. Parmentier, P. Devos, et al.
Evaluation of “Candida score” in critically ill patients: a prospective, multicenter, observational, cohort study.
Ann Intensive Care, 1 (2011), pp. 50
[22]
P.A. Lipsett.
Surgical critical care: fungal infections in surgical patients.
Crit Care Med, 34 (2006), pp. S215-S224
[23]
O. Marchetti, J. Bille, U. Fluckiger, P. Eggimann, C. Ruef, J. Garbino, et al.
Epidemiology of candidemia in Swiss tertiary care hospitals: secular trends, 1991–2000.
Clin Infect Dis, 38 (2004), pp. 311-320
[24]
M.C. Martínez-Jiménez, P. Muñoz, M. Valerio, A. Vena, J. Guinea, E. Bouza.
Combination of Candida biomarkers in patients receiving empirical antifungal therapy in a Spanish tertiary hospital: a potential role in reducing the duration of treatment.
J Antimicrob Chemother, 70 (2015), pp. 3107-3115
[25]
J.F. Mohr, C. Sims, V. Paetznick, J. Rodriguez, M.A. Finkelman, et al.
Prospective survey of (13)-β-d-glucan and its relationship to invasive candidiasis in the surgical intensive care unit setting.
J Clin Microbiol, (2011), pp. 58-61
[26]
P. Montravers, H. Dupont, P. Eggimann.
Intra-abdominal candidiasis: the guidelines-forgotten non-candidemic invasive candidiasis.
Intensive Care Med, 39 (2013), pp. 2226-2230
[27]
P. Montravers, H. Dupont, R. Gauzit, B. Veber, C. Auboyer, P. Blin, et al.
Candida as a risk factor for mortality in peritonitis.
Crit Care Med, 34 (2006), pp. 646-652
[28]
H. Muskett, J. Shahin, G. Eyres, S. Harvey, K. Rowan, D. Harrison.
Risk factors for invasive fungal disease in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review.
Crit Care, 15 (2011), pp. R287
[29]
M.H. Nguyen, M.C. Wissel, R.K. Shields, M.A. Salomoni, B. Hao, E.G. Press, et al.
Performance of Candida real-time polymerase chain reaction, β-d-glucan assay, and blood cultures in the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis.
Clin Infect Dis, 54 (2012), pp. 1240-1248
[30]
J. Pemán, R. Zaragoza, G. Quindós, M. Alkorta, M.S. Cuétara, J.J. Camarena, et al.
Clinical factors associated with a Candida albicans germ tube antibody positive test in intensive care unit patients.
BMC Infect Dis, 11 (2011), pp. 60
[31]
E.G. Playford, A.C. Webster, T.C. Sorrell, J.C. Craig.
Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill and surgical patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
J Antimicrob Chemother, 57 (2006), pp. 628-638
[32]
B. Posteraro, G. De Pascale, M. Tumbarello, R. Torelli, M.A. Pennisi, G. Bello, et al.
Early diagnosis of candidemia in intensive care unit patients with sepsis: a prospective comparison of (13)-β-d-glucan assay, Candida Score, and colonization index.
Crit Care, 15 (2011), pp. R249
[33]
L. Senn, P. Eggimann, R. Ksontini, A. Pascual, N. Demartines, J. Bille, et al.
Caspofungin for prevention of intraabdominal candidiasis in high-risk surgical patients.
Intensive Care Med, 35 (2009), pp. 903-908
[34]
A.N. Sofair, G.M. Lyon, S. Huie-White, E. Reiss, L.H. Harrison, L.T. Sanza, et al.
Epidemiology of community-onset candidemia in Connecticut and Maryland.
Clin Infect Dis, 43 (2006), pp. 32-39
[35]
J.S. Solomkin, J.E. Mazuski, J.S. Bradley, K.A. Rodvold, E.J. Goldstein, E.J. Baron, et al.
Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Clin Infect Dis, 50 (2010), pp. 133-164
[36]
F. Tissot, F. Lamoth, P.M. Hauser, C. Orasch, U. Flückiger, M. Siegemund, et al.
β-Glucan antigenemia anticipates diagnosis of blood culture-negative intraabdominal candidiasis.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 188 (2013), pp. 1100-1109
[37]
K. Traynor.
ICU infection-prevention efforts could be better, study finds.
Am J Health Syst Pharm, 71 (2014), pp. 444-446
[38]
J.L. Vincent, J. Rello, J. Marshall, E. Silva, A. Anzueto, C.D. Martin, et al.
International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units.
JAMA, 302 (2009), pp. 2323-2329
[39]
R.P. Wenzel.
Nosocomial candidemia: risk factors and attributable mortality.
Clin Infect Dis, 20 (1995), pp. 1531-1534
[40]
S.B. Wey, M. Mori, M.A. Pfaller, R.F. Woolson, R.P. Wenzel.
Risk factors for hospital-acquired candidemia. A matched case-control study.
Arch Intern Med, 149 (1989), pp. 2349-2353
[41]
S.P. Yang, Y.Y. Chen, H.S. Hsu, F.D. Wang, L.Y. Chen, C.P. Fung.
A risk factor analysis of healthcare-associated fungal infections in an intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study.
BMC Infect Dis, 13 (2013), pp. 10
[42]
Y. Yu, L. Du, T. Yuan, J. Zheng, A. Chen, L. Chen, et al.
Risk factors and clinical analysis for invasive fungal infection in neonatal intensive care unit patients.
Am J Perinatol, 30 (2013), pp. 589-594
[43]
R. Zaragoza, P. Llinares, E. Maseda, Ferrer G R., A. Rodríguez, Grupo Proyecto Épico.
Épico project: development of educational recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients.
Rev Iberoam Micol, 30 (2013), pp. 135-149
[44]
R. Zaragoza, R. Ferrer, E. Maseda, P. Llinares, A. Rodriguez, EPICO Project Group.
EPICO 2.0 project. Development of educational therapeutic recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in critically ill adult patients in special situations.
Rev Iberoam Micol, 31 (2014), pp. 157-175

All members are listed in Annexes 1, 2 and 3.

Copyright © 2016. Asociación Española de Micología
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.