Publication:
Is routine ophthalmoscopy really necessary in candidemic patients?

dc.contributor.authorVena, Antonio
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorPadilla, Belen
dc.contributor.authorValerio, Maricela
dc.contributor.authorSanchez, Maria Isabel
dc.contributor.authorPuig-Asensio, Mireia
dc.contributor.authorFortun, Jesus
dc.contributor.authorFernandez-Ruiz, Mario
dc.contributor.authorMerino, Paloma
dc.contributor.authorLosa, Juan Emilio
dc.contributor.authorLoza, Ana
dc.contributor.authorRivas, Rosa Ana
dc.contributor.authorBouza, Emilio
dc.contributor.authorCANDIPOP Project, GEIH-GEMICOMED (SEIMC), and REIPI
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-25T10:01:05Z
dc.date.available2023-01-25T10:01:05Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-24
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to determine among patients with candidemia the real rate of ophthalmoscopy and the impact of performing ocular assessment on the outcome of the disease. We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, population-based candidemia surveillance program implemented in Spain during 2010-2011 (CANDIPOP). Ophthalmoscopy was performed in only 168 of the 365 patients with candidemia (46%). Ocular lesions related to candidemia were found in only 13/168 patients (7.7%), of whom 1 reported ocular symptoms (incidence of symptomatic disease in the whole population, 0.27% [1/365]). Ophthalmological findings led to a change in antifungal therapy in only 5.9% of cases (10/168), and performance of the test was not related to a better outcome. Ocular candidiasis was not associated with a worse outcome and progressed favorably in all but 1 evaluable patient, who did not experience vision loss. The low frequency of ophthalmoscopy and ocular involvement and the asymptomatic nature of ocular candidiasis, with a favorable outcome in almost all cases, lead us to reconsider the need for systematic ophthalmoscopy in all candidemic patients.
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0183485
dc.identifier.essn1932-6203
dc.identifier.pmcPMC5655487
dc.identifier.pmid29065121
dc.identifier.pubmedURLhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5655487/pdf
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183485&type=printable
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10668/11721
dc.issue.number10
dc.journal.titlePloS one
dc.journal.titleabbreviationPLoS One
dc.language.isoen
dc.organizationÁrea de Gestión Sanitaria Sur de Sevilla
dc.organizationAGS - Sur de Sevilla
dc.page.numbere0183485
dc.pubmedtypeJournal Article
dc.pubmedtypeMulticenter Study
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshAntifungal Agents
dc.subject.meshCandidemia
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
dc.subject.meshOphthalmoscopy
dc.subject.meshProspective Studies
dc.subject.meshSpain
dc.titleIs routine ophthalmoscopy really necessary in candidemic patients?
dc.typeresearch article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number12
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
PMC5655487.pdf
Size:
696.14 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format