It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Morbidity and mortality from candidemia remain unacceptably high. While infectious disease consultation (IDC) is known to lower the mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, little is known about the impact of IDC in candidemia.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of candidemia patients at a large tertiary care hospital between 2015 and 2019. The crude mortality rate was compared between those with IDC and without IDC. Then, we systematically searched 5 databases through February 2020 and performed a meta-analysis of the impact of IDC on the mortality of patients with candidemia.
Results
A total of 151 patients met the inclusion criteria, 129 (85%) of whom received IDC. Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were significantly lower in the IDC group (18% vs 50%; P = .002; 23% vs 50%; P = .0022, respectively). A systematic literature review returned 216 reports, of which 13 studies including the present report fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among the 13 studies with a total of 3582 patients, IDC was performed in 50% of patients. Overall mortality was 38.2% with a significant difference in favor of the IDC group (28.4% vs 47.6%), with a pooled relative risk of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.35–0.49). Ophthalmology referral, echocardiogram, and central line removal were performed more frequently among patients receiving IDC.
Conclusions
This study is the first systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between IDC and candidemia mortality. IDC was associated with significantly lower mortality and should be considered in all patients with candidemia.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
2 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; Division of Medical Practice, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
3 Division of Internal Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
4 Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
5 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; Department of Infection Prevention and Control, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard - Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
6 Division of Infectious Diseases, George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, DC, USA
7 Division of Infectious Diseases, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
8 Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
9 Hardin Library for the Health Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA