Abstract
Improvements in post-surgical care have led to decreased mortality, but to an increased number of critically ill surgical patients at high risk of fungal colonization and invasive disease. Use of catheters, enteral nutrition, antibacterials and haemodialysis add to the risk. Although Candida albicans remains the most common species causing invasive candidiasis in the post-surgical setting, there has been an increase in the prevalence of non -albicans species associated with the increased use of fluconazole prophylaxis in surgical intensive care units. The prompt diagnosis of candidiasis is complicated by a lack of specific clinical symptoms and difficulties in laboratory diagnosis; therefore, it is vital to recognize at-risk patients and initiate therapy promptly in these individuals. While Candida scoring systems to identify at-risk patients have been developed, these need to be validated in prospective interventional trials. Newer azole and echinocandin antifungal agents have expanded the range of available treatments, and prophylactic antifungal therapy in at-risk, critically ill surgical patients has been shown to be effective.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The incidence of nosocomial candidaemia rose sharply over the 1980–91 period; in particular, the incidence of Candida infections in surgical patients more than doubled from 2.5 to 5.6 per 1000 hospital discharges.[1] This increase in nosocomial candidal infections has been associated with the increased use of immunosuppressive and antineoplastic drugs, broad-spectrum antibacterials and hyperalimentation in patients with severe underlying diseases.[2,3] Moreover, improvements in supportive medical and surgical care have contributed to the increased survival of many critically ill surgical patients at high risk of fungal colonization, and subsequent invasive fungal disease.[3,4]
Patients admitted to surgical intensive care units (ICUs) are at the greatest risk for developing a candidal bloodstream infection, due to extensive surgery, and the frequent use of central venous catheters, indwelling bladder catheters, enteral or intravenous nutrition, antibacterials, haemodialysis and/or mechanical ventilation.[3,5,6] Surgical procedures such as cardiothoracic surgery, upper gastrointestinal tract surgery and liver transplantation are associated with high rates of candidal colonization and invasive Candida infections, as are gastrointestinal perforation, anastomotic leakage and surgery for acute pancreatitis, with exceedingly high mortality rates, prolonged hospital stay and increased healthcare costs.[5,7–13] The purpose of this brief review is to summarize the challenges posed by Candida infections in the surgical patient. Invasive candidiasis in solid organ transplant patients has been reviewed in more detail by Grossi[14] in this supplement.
1. Species Identification
In the NEMIS (National Epidemiology of Mycosis Survey) study, which included 4276 patients admitted to surgical ICUs, there were 9.8 nosocomial bloodstream infections due to Candida species per 1000 admissions, and the Candida species most frequently isolated from blood were C. albicans (48% of cases), C. glabrata (24%), C. tropicalis (19%), C. parapsilosis (7%) and Candida species not otherwise specified (2%).[15] Most cases of candidal bloodstream infection occurred within 3 weeks of admission to the SICU, and 41% of patients with candidal bloodstream infections died.[5] Risk factors that were independently associated with increased risk of candidaemia included prior surgery, acute renal failure and receipt of parenteral nutrition.
Recent epidemiological studies have reported a trend of decreasing isolation of C. albicans (which still remains the most common species causing invasive candidiasis) and increased isolation rates of non-albicans species, such as C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis.[16] The increased use of fluconazole prophylaxis in SICUs has been associated with an increase in the prevalence of non-albicans species (namely, C. glabrata and C. krusei isolates), which are often less susceptible to conventional azole antifungal treatment.[17]
2. Clinical Aspects
Colonization of skin and mucosal membranes (i.e. gastrointestinal and genitourinary) by Candida and/or the alteration of natural host barriers (due to surgical procedures, wounds, insertion of indwelling intravascular and urinary catheters, etc.) may predispose to invasive Candida infection.[18] The gut represents an important portal for intra-abdominal candidal infections. Other frequent clinical manifestations of invasive candidiasis in surgical and ICU patients are candidal bloodstream infection, disseminated candidiasis and candidiasis of the urinary tract. Candidal endophthalmitis, pulmonary candidiasis and Candida endocarditis occur less frequently.[18] Candida peritonitis may occur as a complication of a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract, after gastrointestinal surgery, or as a consequence of anastomotic leakage or peritoneal dialysis. In patients with Candida peritonitis, an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at least 17 and respiratory failure (which indicate severity on admission to the ICU), peritonitis of upper gastrointestinal tract origin and peritoneal fluid found to be positive for Candida upon direct examination were shown to be independently associated with mortality.[19]
Patients having surgery for acute pancreatitis have been reported to have an increased likelihood of Candida infection.[13]
As clinical symptoms frequently lack specificity and laboratory diagnosis is difficult, the diagnosis of severe candidiasis is frequently based on the overall clinical status of the patient and eventually positive fungal cultures. Recognition of patients at risk for colonization and subsequent invasion/dissemination is paramount to clinical diagnosis and prompt initiation of therapy, as delays in treatment are associated with increased mortality.[4,20,21] Several Candida scoring systems have been developed to help identify those at risk of candidaemia,[22] including colonization index and corrected colonization index in critically ill surgical patients.[23] Prospective studies are required in order to assess the value of these systems in the clinical management of patients.
The prophylactic administration of fluconazole to critically ill surgical patients at high risk of Candida infection (pre-emptive therapy) is of proven value.[24–26] The current Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for management of candidiasis[27] recommend prophylactic therapy for high-risk patients hospitalized in the ICU (and for liver, pancreas and small bowel transplant recipients). Empirical antifungal therapy should be considered for at-risk critically ill patients with no other known cause of fever.[27] Therefore the current IDSA guidelines recommend the use of an echinocandin (anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin) as initial therapy of proved or suspected Invasive Candidiasis in high-risk non-neutropenic adult patients with moderately severe to severe illness and for patients with recent azole exposure. Transition to fluconazole after initial echinocandin is appropriate in many cases. Moreover the IDSA guidelines recommend fluconazole for patients who are less critically ill and who have no recent azole exposure.[27] The same therapeutic approach is advised for children, with attention to differences in dosing regimen.[27]
3. Discussion and Conclusions
Despite their high mortality, invasive fungal infections are frequently recognized and treated late, due to difficulties in formulating the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis. An early pre-emptive therapy based on the recognition of risk factors may be appropriate, particularly in cases of broad-spectrum antibacterial treatment, in the presence of central venous lines and other devices traversing the epithelial barrier, in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition or immunosuppression, and in severe illness (APACHE II score >10 and ventilator use >48 hours).[4] Prophylaxis of candidal infections has been shown to provide benefits among critically ill surgical ICU patients.[28,29] Further clinical data are needed, however, to better identify patients who might warrant antifungal prophylaxis, minimizing the risk of resistant fungal strains emergence, while drastically reducing morbidity and mortality.
[References
Banerjee SN, Emori TG, Culver DH, et al. Secular trends in nosocomial primary bloodstream infections in the United States, 1980— 1989. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med 1991 Sep 16; 91(3B): 86–9S
Borzotta AP, Beardsley K. Candida infections in critically ill trauma patients: a retrospective case-control study. Arch Surg 1999 Jun; 134(6): 657–64; discussion 64-5
Vincent JL, Anaissie E, Bruining H, et al. Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of systemic Candida infection in surgical patients under intensive care. Intensive Care Med 1998 Mar; 24(3): 206–16
Dean DA, Burchard KW. Surgical perspective on invasive Candida infections. World J Surg 1998 Feb; 22(2): 127–34
Blumberg HM, Jarvis WR, Soucie JM, 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 2001 Jul 15; 33(2): 177–86
McKinnon PS, Goff DA, Kern JW, et al. Temporal assessment of Candida risk factors in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001 Dec; 136(12): 1401–8; discussion 9
Collins LA, Samore MH, Roberts MS, et al. Risk factors for invasive fungal infections complicating orthotopic liver transplantation. J Infect Dis 1994 Sep; 170(3): 644–52
Eubanks PJ, de Virgilio C, Klein S, et al. Candida sepsis in surgical patients. Am J Surg 1993 Dec; 166(6): 617–9; discussion 9-20
Kratzer C, Tobudic S, Graninger W. Invasive candidiasis, Candida colonisation and antifungal treatment in intensive care patients after cardiothoracic surgery [abstract P1799]. 18th European Congress on Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 2008 19–22 Apr; Barcelona
Patterson JE. Epidemiology of fungal infections in solid organ transplant patients. Transpl Infect Dis 1999 Dec; 1(4): 229–36
Rentz AM, Halpern MT, Bowden R. The impact of candidemia on length of hospital stay, outcome, and overall cost of illness. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27(4): 781–8
Vindenes H, Bjerknes R. The frequency of bacteremia and fungemia following wound cleaning and excision in patients with large burns. J Trauma 1993 Nov; 35(5): 742–9
Calandra T, Bille J, Schneider R, et al. Clinical significance of Candida isolated from peritoneum in surgical patients. Lancet 1989 Dec 16; 2(8677): 1437–40
Grossi PA. Clinical aspects of invasive candidiasis in solid organ transplant recipients. Drugs 2009; 69 Suppl. 1: 15–20
Rangel-Frausto MS, Wiblin T, Blumberg HM, et al. National epidemiology of mycoses survey (NEMIS): variations in rates of bloodstream infections due to Candida species in seven surgical intensive care units and six neonatal intensive care units. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Aug; 29(2): 253–8
Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007 Jan; 20(1): 133–63
Snydman DR. Shifting patterns in the epidemiology of nosocomial Candida infections. Chest 2003 May; 123 (5 Suppl.): 500–3S
Calandra T, Marchetti O. Clinical trials of antifungal prophylaxis among patients undergoing surgery. Clin Infect Dis 2004 Oct 15; 39 Suppl. 4: S185–92
Dupont H, Paugam-Burtz C, Muller-Serieys C, et al. Predictive factors of mortality due to polymicrobial peritonitis with Candida isolation in peritoneal fluid in critically ill patients. Arch Surg 2002 Dec; 137(12): 1341–6; discussion 7
Guery BP, Arendrup MC, Auzinger G, et al. Management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in adult non-neutropenic intensive care unit patients: part I. Epidemiology and diagnosis. Intensive Care Med 2009 Jan; 35(1): 55–62
Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the empiric treatment of Candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005 Sep; 49(9): 3640–5
Concia E, Azzini AM, Conti M. Epidemiology, incidence and risk factors for invasive candidiasis in high-risk patients. Drugs 2009; 69 Suppl. 1: 5–14
Pittet D, Monod M, Suter PM, et al. Candida colonization and subsequent infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg 1994 Dec; 220(6): 751–8
Eggimann P, Francioli P, Bille J, et al. Fluconazole prophylaxis prevents intra-abdominal candidiasis in high-risk surgical patients. Crit Care Med 1999 Jun; 27(6): 1066–72
Pelz RK, Hendrix CW, Swoboda SM, et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent candidal infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg 2001 Apr; 233(4): 542–8
Piarroux R, Grenouillet F, Balvay P, et al. Assessment of preemptive treatment to prevent severe candidiasis in critically ill surgical patients. Crit Care Med 2004 Dec; 32(12): 2443–9
Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009 Mar 1; 48(5): 503–35
Cruciani M, de Lalla F, Mengoli C. Prophylaxis of Candida infections in adult trauma and surgical intensive care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2005 Nov; 31(11): 1479–87
Playford EG, Webster AC, Sorrell TC, et al. 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 2006 Apr; 57(4): 628–38
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Rosalind Weinstock of Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions who provided assistance with English language editing. This assistance was funded by Pfizer. The author has received honoraria for speaking from Pfizer and Wyeth.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sganga, G. Clinical Aspects of Invasive Candidiasis in the Surgical Patient. Drugs 69 (Suppl 1), 29–32 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11315600-000000000-00000
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11315600-000000000-00000