Open Access

Antifungal prophylaxis in critically ill patients

  • Luciano Silvestri1Email author,
  • Durk F Zandstra2,
  • Hendrick KF van Saene3,
  • Andy J Petros4,
  • Sujatha Thyagarajan5,
  • Miguel A de la Cal6 and
  • Corrado Thomann1
Critical Care200812:420

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6906

Published: 13 June 2008

We congratulate van Till and colleagues on their review showing that selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is more effective than single-drug prophylaxis (SAP) in reducing yeast colonisation, infection and mortality [1].

The authors claimed that their review differs from our earlier review, which included paediatric or liver transplant patients. In our review a subgroup analysis was performed in both selected and unselected populations, and demonstrated a significant reduction in yeast carriage and infection in unselected critically ill patients [2].

van Till and colleagues assessed yeast colonisation, lumping together 'positive yeast cultures obtained from sputum, stool, urine and/or wound' [1]. The majority of SDD trials reported positive yeast cultures obtained from surveillance cultures of throat and rectal swabs, whilst the SAP studies mainly assessed positive yeast cultures obtained from diagnostic samples including lower airway secretions, urine and wound fluid. Grouping together surveillance and diagnostic cultures may be misleading in interpreting the efficacy of antifungal interventions.

van Till and colleagues' review demonstrated a nonsignificant 41% reduction in candidemia by SDD and a 68% significant reduction by SAP [1]. The authors concluded that SAP prevents candidemia, whilst SDD does not. We believe that van Till and colleagues evaluated two different populations, as the candidemia rates in the control individuals were 3.79% and 1.69% for SAP and SDD, respectively. A larger sample size is almost certainly needed for SDD to demonstrate a significant reduction in candidemia [3].

Abbreviations

SAP: 

single-drug prophylaxis

SDD: 

selective decontamination of the digestive tract.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Emergency, Unit of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Presidio Ospedaliero
(2)
Department of Intensive Care, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis
(3)
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Liverpool
(4)
Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital
(5)
Department of Intensive Care, Alder Hey Children's Hospital
(6)
Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital

References

  1. van Till JWO, van Ruler O, Lamme B, Weber RJP, Reitsma JB, Boermeester MA: Single-drug therapy or selective decontamination of the digestive tract as antifungal prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care 2007, 11: R126. 10.1186/cc6191PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Silvestri L, van Saene HKF, Milanese M, Gregori D: Impact of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on fungal carriage and infection. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 898-910. 10.1007/s00134-005-2654-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. van Saene HKF, Silvestri L, Petros A, Viviani M, de la Cal MA, Zandstra DF: Comment on 'Prevention of severe Candida infections in non-neutropenic, high-risk, critically ill patients' by Garbino et al. Intensive Care Med 2003, 29: 1192-1193. 10.1007/s00134-003-1770-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2008

Advertisement