ArticleCureus2023
Should Preventive Antifungal Treatment Be Given to Patients With Abdominal Contamination in the Intensive Care Unit?
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Intra-abdominal contamination is a critical risk factor for candidemia. Because of the high mortality of candidemia and delayed results of cultures, preventive antifungal (AF) treatment can be administered. Especially in the intensive care unit (ICU), it may be necessary to determine the preventive AF approach due to the poor clinical condition of the patients. However, this practice is not standard among clinicians, and it is controversial whether it is beneficial or not. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different AF treatment approaches (prophylactic, empirical, and culture-directed) on mortality, development of candidemia, and length of hospital stay in these patients. The primary outcome of the study was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the development of candidemia and length of hospital stay. Methodology This is a retrospective, single-center, cohort study. Adult patients who were hospitalized in the ICU with the diagnosis of intra-abdominal contamination between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, were reviewed retrospectively from electronic hospital records and Infectious Diseases ICU patient follow-up forms. Age, gender, comorbid diseases, the reason for hospitalization, history of surgical operation, surgical procedure type, length of hospital stay, culture results of blood and intraoperative intra-abdominal samples (pus, peritoneal fluid, abscess), type of AF agents, and mortality status of the patients were recorded. Furthermore, white blood cell (WBC) count, platelet count, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, procalcitonin (PCT) level, and serum albumin levels in blood samples taken on three different days (the day of diagnosis, the day of operation, and the day of candidemia) were examined. The patients were grouped as without AF, receiving prophylactic AF, receiving empirical AF, and receiving culture-directed AF. Additionally, the study population was evaluated by dividing it into two groups, namely, those who developed candidemia and those who did not. The patients were evaluated regarding the development of candidemia, AF treatment approach, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Results A total of 196 patients were included in the study. Candidemia was determined in 31.6% of the patients. Candidemia was more common in patients with a history of previous surgery and presenting with acute abdominal pain than other causes. It was determined that 70% of the patients who developed candidemia had perforation, with the most common being colonic perforation. The hospital stay was longer in patients with candidemia than without candidemia (47.9 vs. 22.4 days; p < 0.001). When empirical and prophylactic AF recipients were compared, there was no difference in mortality and length of hospital stay. Prolongation of the time to empirical treatment after perforation/leak was associated with increased candidemia (p = 0.004). Furthermore, patients with a waiting time of ≥4.5 days until surgical operation were at a higher risk of developing candidemia. Conclusions Although the study did not demonstrate a difference in terms of reducing mortality, it was concluded that preventive AF therapy can be administered to reduce the risk of candidemia and hospitalization duration, especially in patients with a history of previous surgical operations and abdominal contamination with a prolonged waiting period until the surgical operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.