Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim ; 60(7): e1-e18, 2013.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23911095

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Candidíase Invasiva , Consenso , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Estado Terminal/terapia , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Adulto , Anestesiologia/organização & administração , Candidíase Invasiva/diagnóstico , Candidíase Invasiva/tratamento farmacológico , Candidíase Invasiva/epidemiologia , Cuidados Críticos/organização & administração , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Infectologia/organização & administração , Microbiologia/organização & administração , Farmacologia/organização & administração , Estudos Prospectivos , Sociedades Médicas , Sociedades Científicas , Espanha , Inquéritos e Questionários
2.
Rev Iberoam Micol ; 30(3 Suppl 1): 135-49, 2013.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23764554

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Candidíase Invasiva , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Adulto , Antifúngicos/farmacologia , Antifúngicos/uso terapêutico , Candida/efeitos dos fármacos , Candida/isolamento & purificação , Candidíase Invasiva/diagnóstico , Candidíase Invasiva/tratamento farmacológico , Candidíase Invasiva/epidemiologia , Competência Clínica , Técnica Delphi , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Equinocandinas/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Micologia/métodos
3.
Rev Iberoam Micol ; 30(3): 135-49, 2013.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23727234

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Candidíase Invasiva , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Estado Terminal , Adulto , Antifúngicos/uso terapêutico , Candida/classificação , Candida/isolamento & purificação , Candida/patogenicidade , Candidíase Invasiva/complicações , Candidíase Invasiva/diagnóstico , Candidíase Invasiva/tratamento farmacológico , Candidíase Invasiva/epidemiologia , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/diagnóstico , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/prevenção & controle , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efeitos adversos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Técnica Delphi , Gerenciamento Clínico , Suscetibilidade a Doenças , Substituição de Medicamentos , Equinocandinas/uso terapêutico , Fluconazol/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Técnicas Microbiológicas , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA