BackgroundThe elderly patients affected by candidemia are growing in proportion to inpatients, but available data are limited. We aimed to determine the epidemiology, antifungal management and clinical risk factors of death in the elderly population with candidemia in China.MethodsThis retrospective study included 63 elderly (≥65 years) and 84 younger patients (16–60 years) at 4 tertiary hospitals. Multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify independent risk factors of death in elderly patients.ResultsThe distribution of Candida species did not differ between elderly and younger patients (p >0.05). Resistance to fluconazole and voriconazole for non-Candida albicans species in elderly patients was approximately double that in younger patients. Host-related risk factors (e.g., underlying solid tumour, diabetes mellitus and chronic renal failure) and hospital-related factors (e.g., prior stay in an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, central vascular and urethral catheters placement) were identified more common in elderly patients. Elderly patients less often received triazoles and were less likely to receive antifungal therapies mostly because elderly or their guardians quit antifungal therapies. APACHE II scores and 30-day mortality were higher for elderly than younger patients (31.7% vs. 16.7%, p =0.032). For elderly patients, antifungal therapy administered before microbiological documentation was the only protective factor for death, whereas absence of antifungal therapies, receipt of mechanical ventilation and APACHE II score ≥20 were independent predictors of death.ConclusionsElderly patients with candidemia had poor prognoses characterized by certain host and hospital-related risk factors and special pathogen resistance features. More awareness of the burden of this disease is required, and the absence of antifungal therapies should be avoided to improve the prognoses of elderly patients with this severe infection.

Objective The burden of candidemia is shifting from intensive care units (ICU) to non-ICU settings. This study aimed to define the differences in epidemiology and predictors of death between ICU-acquired candidemia (ICUAC) and non-ICUAC. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 80 patients with ICUAC and 147 patients with non-IUCAC at five hospitals. Results The distribution of Candida species and resistance to antifungal agents did not differ between the ICUAC and non-ICUAC groups. ICUAC patients received more echinocandins and less triazoles, as well as more adequate antifungal therapy than non-ICUAC patients (all p<0.05). ICUAC patients had a significantly higher average acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score (21.0±7.9 vs. 17.8±8.6; p<0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (9.2±5.5 vs. 7.4±3.9; p<0.05) and day-90 mortality rate (52.5% vs. 36.7%; p<0.05) when compared to non-ICUAC patients. Using a multivariate logistic analysis, adequate antifungal therapy was found to be the only protective factor for death in both groups. Respiratory failure supported with invasive mechanical ventilation, renal failure supported with replacement therapy and an APACHE II score ! 20 were independent predictors of death in ICUAC patients, while age ! 60 years, concurrent bacteremia and APACHE II score ! 20 were independent predictors of death in non-ICUAC patients. ConclusionThe Candida species and antifungal resistance profiles in patients with ICUAC were similar to non-ICUAC patients, but led to worse outcomes. The protective and risk factors for death may therefore be relevant for the clinical management of patients with candidemia in ICU and non-ICU settings.

No abstract