↓ Skip to main content

Safety and efficacy of amphotericin-B deoxycholate inhalation in critically ill patients with respiratory Candida spp. colonization: a retrospective analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Safety and efficacy of amphotericin-B deoxycholate inhalation in critically ill patients with respiratory Candida spp. colonization: a retrospective analysis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12879-014-0575-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick J van der Geest, Erik I Dieters, Bart Rijnders, Johan AB Groeneveld

Abstract

Background Candida spp. are frequently cultured from the respiratory tract in critically ill patients. Most intensivists start amphotericin-B deoxycholate (ABDC) inhalation therapy to eradicate Candida spp. from the respiratory tract. However, the safety and efficacy of this treatment are not well established. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ABDC inhalation for the treatment of respiratory Candida spp. colonization in critically ill patients.MethodsAll non-neutropenic patients admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital from December 2010¿2011, who had positive Candida spp. cultures of the respiratory tract for more than 1 day and required mechanical ventilation >48 h were retrospectively included. The decision to start ABDC inhalation had been made by attending intensivists on clinical grounds in the context of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Infection characteristics and patient courses were assessed.ResultsHundred and thirteen consecutive patients were studied. Fifty-one of them received ABDC inhalation and their characteristics at baseline and day 1 of respiratory colonization did not differ from those of colonized patients not receiving treatment (n¿=¿62). The ABDC-treated group had a similar Candida spp. load but did not decolonize more rapidly as compared to untreated patients. The clinical pulmonary infection and lung injury scores did not decrease as in the untreated group. In a Cox proportional hazard model, the duration of mechanical ventilation was increased (P¿<¿0.003) by ABDC treatment independently of other potential determinants and Candida spp. colonization. No differences in ventilator-associated pneumonia or in overall mortality (up to day 90) were observed.ConclusionTreatment of respiratory Candida spp. colonization in non-neutropenic critically ill patients by inhaled ABDC may not affect respiratory colonization but may increase duration of mechanical ventilation, because of direct toxicity of the drug on the lung.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Unspecified 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,308,698
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,453
of 7,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,554
of 260,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#110
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.