Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Predicting Invasive Candidiasis in Intensive Care Unit Patients by Incorporating Clinical Risk Factors and Lymphocyte Subtyping

Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.

Delayed treatment of candidemia has previously been shown to be an important determinant of patient outcome. However, septic shock attributed to Candida infection and its determinants of outcome have not been previously evaluated in a large patient population. A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with septic shock and blood cultures positive for Candida species was conducted at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a 1250-bed urban teaching hospital (January 2002-December 2010). Two hundred twenty-four consecutive patients with septic shock and a positive blood culture for Candida species were identified. Death during hospitalization occurred among 155 (63.5%) patients. The hospital mortality rate for patients having adequate source control and antifungal therapy administered within 24 hours of the onset of shock was 52.8% (n = 142), compared to a mortality rate of 97.6% (n = 82) in patients who did not have these goals attained (P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that delayed antifungal treatment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 33.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.65-118.04; P = .005) and failure to achieve timely source control (AOR, 77.40; 95% CI, 21.52-278.38; P = .001) were independently associated with a greater risk of hospital mortality. The risk of death is exceptionally high among patients with septic shock attributed to Candida infection. Efforts aimed at timely source control and antifungal treatment are likely to be associated with improved clinical outcomes.