These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Empirical antifungal therapy in selected patients with persistent febrile neutropenia.
    Author: Aguilar-Guisado M, Espigado I, Cordero E, Noguer M, Parody R, Pachón J, Cisneros JM.
    Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant; 2010 Jan; 45(1):159-64. PubMed ID: 19525983.
    Abstract:
    Universal empirical antifungal therapy (EAT) in patients with unexplained persistent febrile neutropenia (PFN) is the standard of care, but EAT could be applied in selected patients on the basis of clinical criteria and risk factors. A prospective interventional study was carried out to analyse the incidence and related mortality of invasive fungal infection (IFI) in patients with PFN according to whether or not EAT was indicated. EAT was indicated according to the following criteria: (a) severe sepsis or septic shock; (b) focused infection: lung, central nervous system, sinus, abdominal or skin; (c) individualized clinical decision in patients at high risk. Sixty-six (19%) of 347 episodes of febrile neutropenia fulfilled PFN criteria, 97% with a haematological malignancy. Just 26 (39.4%) were treated with EAT. The overall IFI incidence was 4.5%. In the group that received EAT, three patients developed IFI (11.5%), in comparison with none in the group that did not receive it (P=0.04, RR 2.7:1.9-3.8). IFI-related mortality was null in the group that did not receive EAT and 8% (two of 26 patients) in the group that received EAT. These data suggest that in patients with PFN, EAT in selected patients may be safe and avoid unnecessary antifungal therapy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]