Treatment of invasive candidiasis in non-haematological patients

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Micafungin vs. L-AmB in ICU Patients (n=230)63% 66% 38% p=n.s.34%Dupont Crit Care 2009
Anidulafungin vs. fluconazole studyMITTpopulationAnidulafungin Fluconazole DifferenceN=127 (%) N=118 (%) 95% CISuccess EIV 96 (75.6) 71 (60.2) 15.4 (3.9-27.0)(p
Page 5 and 6: EpidemiologyMainly data from the US
Page 7 and 8: Survival in candidemia, species rel
Page 9 and 10: Question1 : Which Candida species i
Page 11 and 12: Incidence and mortality of Candida
Page 13 and 14: HOW TO IDENTIFY PATIENTSAT RISK FOR
Page 15 and 16: Question 2: Which factor has the gr
Page 17 and 18: Identification of patients“Ostros
Page 19 and 20: Question3: What’s the problem wit
Page 21 and 22: Identification of patients“Ostros
Page 23 and 24: Are the risk predictive models gene
Page 25 and 26: Question 4: Empirical treatment is
Page 27 and 28: HOW TO PREVENT INVASIVECANDIDIASIS
Page 29 and 30: Empirical antifungal therapy in ICU
Page 31 and 32: TREATMENT OF INVASIVECANDIDIASIS
Page 33 and 34: Why do we choose whichantifungal dr
Page 35 and 36: Randomized Non-Inferior TrialsAmB v
Page 37 and 38: Caspofungin vs. Amphotericin B tria
Page 39: Micafungin vs. L-AmB in ICU Patient
Page 43 and 44: Success rates different echinocandi
Page 45 and 46: Question 5: Should the intravascula
Page 47 and 48: Antifungal agents and survivalCandi
Page 49 and 50: In conclusion• Invasive candidias
Page 51 and 52: Treatment of candidemia-Candida spe
Page 53 and 54: Success at EIV treatment by pathoge
Page 55 and 56: Question 6: Should the intravascula
Page 57 and 58: Candida Scorein practiceProspective

Treatment of invasive candidiasis in non-haematological patients

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?