Factors associated with the development of septic shock in patients with candidemia: A post hoc analysis from two prospective cohorts

Background: Almost one third of the patients with candidemia develop septic shock. The understanding why some patients do and others do not develop septic shock is very limited. The objective of this study was to identify variables associated with septic shock development in a large population of patients with candidemia. Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed on two prospective, multicenter cohort of patients with candidemia from 12 hospitals in Spain and Italy. All episodes occurring from September 2016 to February 2018 were analyzed to assess variables associated with septic shock development defined according to The Third International Consensus Definition for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Results: Of 317 candidemic patients, 99 (31.2%) presented septic shock attributable to candidemia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identifies the following factors associated with septic shock development: age > 50 years (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.03-6.41, p = 0.04), abdominal source of the infection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.04-4.55, p = 0.04), and admission to a general ward at the time of candidemia onset (OR 0.21, 95% CI, 0.12-0.44, p = 0.001). Septic shock development was independently associated with a greater risk of 30-day mortality (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.08-4.24, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Age and abdominal source of the infection are the most important factors significantly associated with the development of septic shock in patients with candidemia. Our findings suggest that host factors and source of the infection may be more important for development of septic shock than intrinsic virulence factors of organisms

An evidence-based bundle improves the quality of care and outcomes of patients with candidaemia

Background: Candidaemia is a leading cause of bloodstream infections in hospitalized patients all over the world. It remains associated with high mortality. Objectives: To assess the impact of implementing an evidence-based package of measures (bundle) on the quality of care and outcomes of candidaemia. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify measures related to better outcomes in candidaemia. Eight quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) were identified and a set of written recommendations (early treatment, echinocandins in septic shock, source control, follow-up blood culture, ophthalmoscopy, echocardiography, de-escalation, length of treatment) was prospectively implemented. The study was performed in 11 tertiary hospitals in Spain. A quasi-experimental design before and during bundle implementation (September 2016 to February 2018) was used. For the pre-intervention period, data from the prospective national surveillance were used (May 2010 to April 2011). Results: A total of 385 and 263 episodes were included in the pre-intervention and intervention groups, respectively. Adherence to all QCIs improved in the intervention group. The intervention group had a decrease in early (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23-0.89; P = 0.022) and overall (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.4-0.94; P = 0.023) mortality after controlling for potential confounders. Conclusions: Implementing a structured, evidence-based intervention bundle significantly improved patient care and early and overall mortality in patients with candidaemia. Institutions should embrace this objective strategy and use the bundle as a means to measure high-quality medical care of patients