You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Epidemiology of Candida albicans and non-C.albicans of neonatal candidemia at a tertiary care hospital in western China

Contributed equally
BMC Infectious DiseasesBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:329

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2423-8

  • Received: 10 October 2016
  • Accepted: 26 April 2017
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Although the majority of Candida infections occur in the developing world, candidemia epidemiology is poorly understood in these countries. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of non-Candida albicans (non-C. albicans) candidemia among neonates at Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital in China.

Methods

A retrospective review of all positive blood culture about Candida species in neonatal intensive care unit was conducted between January 2012 and November 2015. Information about demographics, risk factors and outcome of candidemia were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify the risk factors associated with the development of non-C.albicans candidemia.

Results

The prevalence of candidemia in infants was 1.4%. Non-C.albicans was responsible for 56.5% of neonatal candidemia. The predisposing factors for development of non-C.albicans candidemia among infants included mechanical ventilation [odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 3.13, 1.07–9.14; P = 0.037] and use of assisted reproductive technology (OR, 95%CI = 4.52, 1.39–14.77; P = 0.012). The overall mortality rate of candidemia was 8.7% and non-C.albicans attributed to 83.3% of all mortalities.

Conclusions

Non-C.albicans species are the major cause of candidemia in local neonatal group. The study highlights the urgent needs to evaluate the possibility of development of non-C.albicans candidemia in neonates exposed to these risk factors and much emphasis must be laid on the early implementation of medical intervention to reduce the incidences of candidemia in neonates.

Keywords

  • Infants
  • Candidemia
  • Non-C.albicans
  • Assisted reproductive technology

Background

Candida species are the third most common pathogens that attributed to neonatal bloodstream infections and are associated with 20–34% mortality [1, 2]. Although Candida albicans has long been the most common cause of candidemia infections obtained from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) [3, 4]. Non-C.albicans species such as Candida glabrata (C.glabrata), Candida tropicalis (C.tropicalis), Candida parapsilosis (C.parapsilosis) and Candida krusei (C.krusei) have emerged as the second or even the predominant pathogens that caused neonatal candidemia in some local hospitals [5].

Infants are more vulnerable to develop candidemia due to their critical underlying conditions, immature immune system, and invasive operations [6, 7]. The predisposing factors contributing to the current increase of neonatal candidemia included prematurity, very low birth weight, aggressive broad-spectrum antibiotics, prolonged hospitalization, invasive operations such as central venous catheters, intubation and total parenteral nutrition [812].

As the Candida species formed the biofilms on the surface of indwelling medical appliances, their high virulence, the documented horizontal nosocomial transmission, vertically from mother to neonate, and their developmental of resistance to azole antifungal agents [8, 9, 13], the neonatal candidemia has presented a challenge to pediatricians.

Although several studies had reported the epidemiology of Candida infections in China, they mainly focused on adults, invasive Candida infections or conducted among special groups [1417]. The investigation about Candida albicans (C.albicans) compared to non-C.albicans candidemia in neonatal groups are limited in China [18]. It is important to know local information about candidemia infections in NICUs as the Candida infections at local levels could provide pediatricians the full information to implement early medical practice to diagnosis and treat these high-risk groups. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the epidemiology of candidemia in neonatal groups at a single center in western China.

Methods

Study design and data collection

This retrospective study was conducted between January 2012 and November 2015, in NICU of Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital. The medical charts for 5075 admissions during the 4-year period were reviewed. Infants with positive blood culture results of Candida species were defined as candidemia. Collected demographics on previously identified risk included necrotizing enterocolitis, neurodevelopmental impairment, maternal underlying diseases (such as preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension, cholestasis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, etc.), respiratory distress, vaginal birth, fetal membrane rupture, neonatal congenital diseases (such as congenital heart disease, Glucose-6-Phosplate Dehydrogenase deficiency, thalassemia, etc.), abdominal surgery, mechanical ventilation, central venous catheter, intubation, pulmonary active substance use, steroids use, antacid use, total parenteral nutrition, hospitalization duration, 3rd cephalosporins use, carbapenems use, vancomycin use, multiple antibiotic (≥3 classes) use, antibiotic therapeutic duration (including the administration of antibiotics prior to the occurrence of candidemia and the prophylaxis antibiotic use during hospitalization), use of prophylaxis antifungal agent (fluconazole), and antifungal therapeutic duration. The collection data from medical chart was permitted by the Institutional Review Board.

Microbiologic methods

Blood samples were cultured in the BacT/AlerT 3D system (Biomérieux). Chromo Agar medium was used for Candida species identification (Biomérieux) and API 20C AuX (Biomérieux) was used for confirmation.

Statistical analysis

SPSS version 20.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Il, USA) was used. Potential risk factors associated with increased candidemia risk were identified using univariate logistic regression analysis. Variables with 2-tailed P < 0.05 were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to evaluate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate the strength of any association. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance.

Results

The distribution of Candida species and incidence of candidemia

There were 5075 admissions of neonates (aged <28 days) in the NICU, 69 infants had Candida bloodstream infections during the 4-year study period. The incidence of candidemia was 1.4%. C.albicans was the leading causative pathogen of candidemia and it was isolated in 43.5% of the patients. Non-C.albicans was responsible for 56.5% of neonatal candidemia. The distribution of non-C.albicans species was C.glabrata for 33.3%, C.tropicalis for 20.3%, C.parapsilosis for 1.4% and C.kefyr for 1.4%.

Risk factors associated with candidemia due to non-C.Albicans

Infant demographics and risk factors for candidemia are shown in Table 1. There was no difference between C.albicans and non-C.albicans in terms of the gestational age (31.7 vs 31.5 weeks, P = 0.765), birth weight (1670.0 g vs 1417.6 g, P = 0.128), or male gender (16.7% vs 30.8%, P = 0.150).
Table 1

Clinical characteristics of neonates between C.albicans and non-C.albicans

Variable

C.albicans mean (95%CI) or n (%)

non-C.albicans mean (95%CI) or n (%)

P value

odds ratio (OR) (95%CI)

Demographics

 gestational age (wks)

31.7 (27.6, 35.8)

31.5 (27.7, 36.3)

0.765

 

 birth weight (g)

1670.0 (962.1,2377.9)

1417.6 (777.1,2058.1)

0.128

 

 male gender, n (%)

22 (73.3)

22 (56.4)

0.150

0.47 (0.17–1.32)

 admission age

2.1 (2.0, 6.2)

1.1 (0.6, 1.6)

0.138

 

Risk factors

 necrotizing enterocolitis

5 (16.7)

12 (30.8)

0.183

2.22 (0.69–7.21)

 neurodevelopmental impairment

7 (23.3)

8 (20.5)

0.778

0.85 (0.27–2.68)

 maternal underlying diseases

12 (40.0)

18 (46.2)

0.609

1.29 (0.50–3.36)

 assisted reproductive technology

5 (16.7)

19 (48.7)

0.008

4.75 (1.51–14.96)

 vaginal birth

19 (63.3)

23 (59.0)

0.713

1.20 (0.45–3.20)

 fetal membrane rupture (h)

16.4 (28.4, 61.2)

26.6 (36.0, 89.2)

0.459

 

 congentital diseases

13 (43.3)

24 (61.5)

0.135

2.09 (0.80–5.51)

 abdominal surgery

4 (13.3)

6 (15.4)

0.811

1.18 (0.30–4.63)

 mechanical ventilation

14 (46.7)

29 (74.4)

0.021

3.31 (1.20–9.15)

 central venous catheter

14 (46.7)

27 (69.2)

0.061

2.57 (0.96–6.91)

 intubation

10 (33.3)

21 (53.8)

0.092

2.33 (0.87–6.26)

 pulmonary active substance use

7 (23.3)

9 (23.1)

0.980

0.99 (0.32–3.04)

 steroids use

6 (20.0)

9 (23.1)

0.759

1.20 (0.38–3.84)

 antacid use

3 (10.3)

8 (21.1)

0.250

2.31 (0.56–9.63)

 total parenteral nutrition

23 (76.7)

36 (92.3)

0.080

3.65 (0.86–15.57)

 hospitalization duration (d)

43.8 (19.1, 78.5)

49.1 (26.6, 71.6)

0.367

 

 3rdcephalosporins use

16 (55.2)

23 (59.0)

0.754

1.17 (0.44–3.08)

 carbapenems use

21 (70.0)

30 (76.9)

0.517

1.43 (0.49–4.20)

 vancomycin use

4 (13.3)

6 (15.4)

0.811

1.18 (0.30–4.63)

 multiple antibiotic use

19 (63.3)

18 (46.2)

0.158

0.50 (0.19–1.31)

 antibiotic therapeutic duration (d)

28.1 (10.0, 46.2)

38.0 (19.3, 56.7)

0.033

 

 prophylaxis antifungal therapy

19 (63.3)

32 (82.1)

0.084

2.65 (0.88–7.99)

 antifungal therapeutic duration (d)

7.9 (2.3, 13.5)

8.8 (2.3, 15.3)

0.535

 

Outcome

 death

1 (3.3)

5 (12.8)

0.197

4.27 (0.47–38.62)

In the univariate logistic regression model, mechanical ventilation was significantly more common in neonates with candidemia caused by non-C.albicans (74.4% vs 46.7%, P = 0.021). The antibiotic therapeutic duration was longer in the non-C.albicans group compared to C.albicans group (38.0 vs 28.1 days, P = 0.033). Among infants with candidemia, 48.7% were conceived using assisted reproductive technology, compared with 16.7% in C.albicans group (P = 0.008).

Based on step-wise multivariate logistic regression analysis, infants with non-C.albicans candidemia infections were more likely to undergo mechanical ventilation (OR, 95%CI = 3.13, 1.07–9.14, P = 0.037). Infants who were conceived using assisted reproductive technology were more likely to develop non-C.albicans candidemia (OR, 95%CI = 4.52, 1.39–14.77, P = 0.012) (Table 2).
Table 2

Multivariate analysis for C.albicans and non-C.albicans

Risk factor

Odds ratio

95% CI

P value

assisted reproductive technology

4.52

1.39–14.77

0.012

mechanical ventilation

3.13

1.07–9.14

0.037

Outcome

The overall mortality among affected infants was 5.8%. C.albicans and non-C.albicans were associated with a mortality rate of 3.3%, 12.8%, respectively. There was no significance between the two groups (P = 0.197).

Discussion

Candida species have emerged as important pathogens which are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in neonates [1, 10]. In the past two decades, there have been several cohort studies indicating that the cause of Candida bloodstream infection has shifted from C.albicans to non-C.albicans [1921]. Widespread use of azole antifungal agents, especially fluconazole, was one of the reasons contributing to the increased isolation rate of non-C.albicans and the decreased isolation rate of C.albicans [22, 23]. Many studies from western countries showed that C.albicans was the predominant Candida species isolated from candidemia, followed by C.parapsilosis among infants [3, 22]. It was reported that C.parapsilosis attributed to one-fifth of all cases of candidemia in neonates [24]. Our study revealed that C.parapsilosis attributed to only 1.4% of all cases of neonatal candidemia. In our study, we observed a changing pattern of neonatal candidemia among infant patients. The most frequent Candida species isolated from the bloodstream was C.albicans (43.5%). The most common non-C.albicans species was C.glabrata (33.3%), followed by C.tropicalis (20.3%). The non-C.albicans together accounted for more than 55% of all candidemia in our center. This species distribution pattern varied from western countries but was consistent with studies conducted in Australia and in 11 NICUs in China [21, 25]. It was reported that the difference of prevalence of candidemia due to a specific Candida specie may vary by geographic region [15], and some researches recommended that the study should focus at the local level rather than at the worldwide scale [26]. One of the outbreak of candidemia caused by C.parapsilosis reported from a Chinese hospital revealed that all strains was susceptible to fluconazole [27]. Fluconazole has been recommended as the best alternative antifungal drug for both of prophylaxis and primary treatment for patients with candidemia due to its efficacy and safety [28, 29]. In China, C.parapsilosis isolated from sterile body fluids have rarely been reported to be resistant to fluconazole [30, 31]. A prospective cohort study from a teaching hospital conducted between 2006 and 2011 reported that all 25 C.parapsilosis strains tested were susceptible to fluconazole [30]. The 2010 National China Hospital Invasive Fungal Surveillance Net (CHIF-NET) program found that only 1.4% of C.parapsilosis strains were resistant to fluconazole [31]. Based on those studies, we can state with certainty that C.parapsilosis specie isolated from blood stream is still highly susceptible to fluconazole in Chinese region and the use of fluconazole for prophylaxis in our hospital can be effective.

Many investigations have confirmed that use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and prolonged antibiotic therapeutic duration were the most common risk factors associated with neonatal candidemia [32]. A previous study showed that prolonged use of 3rd generation cephalosporin was associated with neonatal candidemia due to C.parapsilosis in infants [33]. Previous studies also suggested that prolonged antibiotic therapeutic duration predisposed to C.glabrata was attributed to candidemia [34, 35]. Our observation was in agreement with the general view that prolonged antibiotic use was associated with an increase of non-C.albicians candidemia in patients. It was reported that universal exposure to antibacterial drugs would suppress the bacterial flora and facilitate Candida colonization, which may increase the potential risk of development of candidemia [32]. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating the antibacterial burden in infected neonates.

In the multivariate logistic regression models, we found that mechanical ventilation affected the risk of candidemia infection with non-C.albicans isolates. It is well known that mechanical ventilation would play an important role in the pathogenesis of invasive candidiasis because of abrading the respiratory mucosa, providing Candida species for a portal of entry into the bloodstream [32]. Once Candida species adheres to the surface of invasive medical devices, it can form a biofilm thus protecting itself from immune responses and antifungal therapy.

Additionally, our analysis identified that use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) such as in vitro fertilization-assisted pregnancy would serve as an independent risk factor for development of non-C.albicans candidemia in newborns (OR, 95% CI = 4.52, 1.39–14.77, P = 0.012). This association may be partly due to the high proportion infection caused by C.glabrata among the neonates whom were the production of ART. In the non-C.albicans candidemia group, 73.7% (14/19) of neonates were conceived using ART. Globally, few studies have verified the association of ART and the outcome of neonatal candidemia. Most of the previous literature focused on the Candida species was associated with chorioamnionitis in in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy [36]. It was reported that some types of uterine manipulation, such as IVF, may introduce the fungus at the time of embryo transfer [37]. Although C.glabrata showed a reduced virulence and absence of pathognomonic lesions compared with C.albicans, there was strong documented evidence of association between chorioamnionitis caused by C.glabrata and the use of ART, and the high lethality and morbidity in such group [38]. One of the studies showed that in 72% of cases of C.glabrata chorioamnionitis, conception was through ART [39]. These results raised the concern of the need for Candida species screening prior to IVF initialization. Although we failed to find out the data of culture results before embryo transfer, 73.9% of the infected neonates had received prophylaxis antifungal agents (fluconazole). Among the patients who were conceived using ART, 91.7% cases were administered fluconazole for prophylactic use. This may partly explain why the mortality rate was lower (overall mortality rate was 8.7%) that previous reports (24–30% in neonatal candidemia) [32].

The main limitation of our study was the retrospective design and the small sample size, which may compromise the statistical power. Additionally, we cannot collect the data of maternal yeasts colonization before and after delivery, which may not provide the enough information for evaluation of the vertical transmission and the association about maternal yeasts colonization and the subsequence of development of neonatal candidemia. Nevertheless, our data revealed that prolonged antibiotic therapeutic duration, mechanical ventilation and use of assisted reproductive technology were all the independent risk factors for the development of neonatal non-C.albicans candidemia.

Conclusions

Non-C.albicans species are the major cause of candidemia in local neonatal group. The study highlights the urgent needs to evaluate the possibility of development of non-C.albicans candidemia in neonates exposed to these risk factors and much emphasis must be laid on the early implementation of medical intervention to reduce the incidences of candidemia in neonates.

Abbreviations

95%CIs: 

95% confidence intervals

ART: 

Assisted reproductive technology

C.albicans

Candida albicans

C.glabrata

Candida glabrata

C.krusei

Candida krusei

C.parapsilosis

Candida parapsilosis

C.tropicalis

Candida tropicalis

CHIF-NET: 

China Hospital Invasive Fungal Surveillance Net

IVF: 

in vitro fertilization

NICUs: 

Neonatal intensive care units

non-C. albicans

non-Candida albicans

ORs: 

Odds ratios

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the confidentiality permission with the Institutional Review Board but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

YD and LJ designed the study and drafted an outline. JF, YD, BW, LW, SX, PQ, LW and LJ participated in data analysis, JF drafted the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content. All of authors approved the final content off this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Laboratory, Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Liuzhou, China
(2)
Department of Neonatology, Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Liuzhou, China
(3)
Department of Science and Education, Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Liuzhou, China
(4)
Department of Laboratory, Liuzhou Worker’s Hospital, No 1 Liushi Rd, Liuzhou, 545005, China

References

  1. Benjamin DK Jr, Stoll BJ, Fanaroff AA, McDonald SA, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development neonatal research network. Neonatal candidiasis among extremely low birth weight infants: risk factors, mortality rates, and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months. Pediatrics. 2006;117:84–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Shetty SS, Harrison LH, Hajjeh RA, Taylor T, et al. Determining risk factors for candidemia among newborn infants from population-based surveillance: Baltimore, Maryland, 1998-2000. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24:601–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Oeser C, Lamagni T, Heath PT, Sharland M, et al. The epidemiology of neonatal and pediatric candidemia in England and Wales, 2000-2009. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32:23–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Steinbach WJ, Roilides E, Berman D, Hoffman JA, et al. Results from a prospective, international, epidemiologic study of invasive candidiasis in children and neonates. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012;31:1252–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Trofa D, Gácser A, Nosanchuk JD. Candida parapsilosis, an emerging fungal pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21:606–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Filioti J, Spiroglou K, Panteliadis CP, Roilides E. Invasive candidiasis in pediatric intensive care patients: epidemiology, risk factors, management, and outcome. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1272–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey AJ, Saiman L, Polin RA. Hospital-acquired infectious in the NICU: epidemiology for the new millennium. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35:223–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sighi S, Deep A. Invasive candidiasis in pediatric intensive care units. Indian J Pediatr. 2009;76:1033–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Roilides E. Invasive candidiasis in neonates and children. Early Hum Dev. 2011;87:S75–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Benjamin DK Jr, Stoll BJ, Gantz MG, Walsh MC, et al. Neonatal candidiasis: epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Pediatrics. 2010;126:e865–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Rodriguez D, Almirante B, Park BJ, Cuenca-Estrella M, et al. Candidemia in neonatal intensive caur units: Barcelona, Spain. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25:224–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fridkin SK, Kaufman D, Edwards JR, Shetty S, et al. Changing incidence of Candida bloodstream infections among NICU patients in the United States: 1995-2004. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1680–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Tumbarello M, Posteraro B, Trecarichi EM, Fiori B, et al. Biofilm production by Candida species and inadequate antifungal therapy as predictors of mortality for patients with candidemia. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:1843–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Li C, Wang H, Yin M, Han H, et al. The differences in the epidemiology and predictors of death between candidemia acquired in intensive care units and other hospital settings. Intern Med. 2015;54:3009–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhang XB, Yu SJ, Yu JX, Gong YL, et al. Retrospective analysis of epidemiology and prognostic factors for candidemia at a hospital in China, 2000-2009. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2012;65:510–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wu Z, Liu Y, Feng X, Liu Y, et al. Candidemia: incidence rates, type of species, and risk factors at a tertiary care academic hospital in China. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;22:4–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ding X, Yan D, Sun W, Zeng Z, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for nosocomial Non-Candida albicans candidemia in adult patients at a tertiary care hospitals in North China. Med Mycol. 2015;53:684–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hua S, Huang J, Wu Z, Feng Z. A comparison study between Candida parapsilosis sepsis and Candida albicans sepsis in preterm infants. Turk J Pediatr. 2012;54:502–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dzierzanowska-Fangrat K, Romanowska E, Gryniewicz-Kwiatkowska O, Migdal M, et al. Candidemia in a polish tertiary paediatric hospital, 2000 to 2010. Mycoses. 2014;57:105–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. VelascoE BR. A prospective cohort study evaluating the prognostic impact of clinical charaeteristics and comorbid conditions of hospitalized adult and pediatric cancer patients with candidemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;27:1071–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Blyth CC, Chen SC, Slavin MA, Serena C, et al. Australian Candidemia Study. Not just little adults: candidemia epidemiology, molecular characterization, and anti-fungal susceptibility in neonatal and pediatric patients. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1360–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sendid B, Cotteau A, Francois N, D'Haveloose A, et al. Candidemia and antifungal therapy in a French university hospital: rough trends over a decade and possible links. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:80–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Trick WE, Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Hajjeh RA, et al. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System Hospitals. Secular trend of hospital-acquired candidemia among intensive care unit patients in the United States during 1989-1999. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:627–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Oser C, Vergnano S, Naidoo R, Anthony M, et al. Neonatal invasive fungal infection in England 2004-2010. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:936–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Xia H, Wu H, Xia S, Zhu X, et al. Invasive candidiasis in preterm neonates in China: a retrospective study from 11 NICUS during 2009-2011. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33:106–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mikulsha M, Bassetti M, Ratto S, Viscoli C. Invasive candidiasis in non-hematological patients. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2011;3:e2011007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. He W, Zhang L, Kudinha T, Kong F, et al. Investigation of an unrecognized large-scale outbreak of Candida parapsilosis Sensu stricto fungaemia in a tertiary-care hospital in China. Sci Rep. 2016;6:27099.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinhati HM, Casulari LA, Souza AC, Siqueira RA, et al. Outbreak of candidemia caused by fluconazole resistant Candida parapsilosis strains in an intensive care unit. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):433.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, Benjamin DK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:503–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Li F, Wu L, Cao B, Zhang Y, et al. Surveillance of the prevalence, antibiotic susceptibility, and genotypic characterization of invasive candidiasis in a teaching hospital in China between 2006 to 2011. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:353.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. He W, Xiao M, Chen SC-A, Kong F, et al. In vitro susceptibilities of yeast species to Fluconazole and Voriconazole as determined by the 2010 National China Hospital Invasive Fungal Surveillance net (CHIF-NET) study. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(12):3952–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly MS, Benjamin DK Jr, Smith PB. The epidemiology and diagnosis of invasive candidiasis among premature infants. Clin Perinatol. 2015;42:105–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Benjamin DK Jr, Ross K, Mckinney RE Jr, Benjamin DK, et al. When to suspect fungal infection in neonates: a clinical comparison of Candida albicans and Candida parapsilosisfungemia with coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Pediatrics. 2000;106:712–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Chow JK, Golan Y, Ruthazer R, Karchmer AW, et al. Risk factors for albicans and non-albicans candidemia in the intensive care unit. Cri Care Med. 2008;36:1993–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin MY, Carmeli Y, Zumsteg J, Flores EL, et al. Prior antimicrobial therapy and risk for hospital-acquired Candida glabrata and Candida kruseifungemia: a case-case-control study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:4555–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Ganer Herman H, MevorachZussman N, KrajdenHaratz K, Bar J, et al. Candida glabratachorioamnionitis following in vitro fertilization: review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015;80:145–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Asemota OA, Nyirjesy P, Fox R, Sobel JD. Candida glabratacomplicating in vitro pregnancy: successful management of subsequent pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:803. e1-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tan SQ, Ng OT, Khong CC. Candida glabrataspesis associated with chorioamnionitis in an IVF twin pregnancy: should we deliver? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:962–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Alfei A, Rizzo A, Cavanna C, Lallitto F, et al. Candida Glabrata and pre-term premature rupture of membrane complicating in vitro pregnancy: case report and confirmation of mother to neonate transmission. Arch Gynecol Obset. 2014;290:211–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement