ページの先頭です
HOME > Past Issue List > Issue List > Abstract
言語を選択(Language)
日本語(Japanese)English

Abstract

Vol.64 No.2 March 2016

The diagnosis, treatment and point of Candida peritonitis

Kazuhiko Nakajima, Yoshio Takesue, Kaoru Ichiki, Takashi Ueda, Akihiro Doita, Yasunao Wada and Toshie Tsuchida

Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Hyogo College of Medicine, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan

Abstract

Candida is a major cause of secondary and tertiary peritonitis. Candida peritonitis can be diagnosed when Candida is detected in the pus extracted from percutaneous drainage, or from intraperitoneal necrotic tissue under a microscope. However, if a drainage tube is in place when Candida is detected, the tube should be regarded as a colonization site. Therefore, in perforative peritonitis, not all cases are treated for Candida, even if its presence is detected. The Candida score was proposed for the early diagnosis of peritonitis suspected as having Candida. However, laboratory culture is complicated and requires a long time. In Japan, beta-D-glucan is often used for serodiagnosis. Positive Candida detection from two or more places, or a beta-D-glucan test is a standard start to empiric treatment. Although Candida albicans is the most common strain responsible for Candida peritonitis, the incidence of non-albicans Candida peritonitis is increasing. In the period from 2006 to 2013, forty patients with Candida peritonitis were treated in this study. C. albicans was the most commonly isolated organism (68.4%), followed by C. glabrata (10.5%). As initial antibiotic therapy, fosfluconazole (19/40 patients: 47.5%) and echinocandins (21/40 patients: 52.5%) were administered. Following the lack of any improvement, 21.1% of the patients who were originally on fosfluconazole went over to echinocandins. In the 33 patients in whom the therapeutic effects were evaluated, efficacy was seen in all cases.

Key word

Candida, peritonitis

Received

November 12, 2014

Accepted

November 26, 2015

Jpn. J. Chemother. 64 (2): 239-243, 2016