title: Fluconazole prophylaxis in critically ill surgical patients: a meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on the incidence of fungal infections and on mortality among critically ill surgical patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of fluconazole prophylaxis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Subjects participating in the clinical trials in this area.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified four randomized studies comparing fluconazole to placebo for prevention of fungal infections in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). The studies enrolled 626 patients and used differing dosing regimens of fluconazole. All trials were double-blind and two were multicenter studies. Fluconazole administration significantly reduced the incidence of fungal infections (pooled odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.72; p < .001). However, fluconazole prophylaxis was not associated with a survival advantage (pooled OR for mortality, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.28; p = NS). Fluconazole did not statistically alter the rate of candidemia, as this was low across the studies and developed in only 2.2% of all participants. Performing a sensitivity analysis and including two additional studies that indirectly examined fluconazole prophylaxis in the critically ill did not change our observations. Data from the reports reviewed were insufficient to allow comment on the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on resource utilization, the distribution of non-albicans species of Candida, and the emergence of antifungal resistance. Generally, fluconazole appeared to be safe for SICU patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Prophylactic fluconazole administration for prevention of mycoses in SICU patients appears to successfully decrease the rate of these infections, but this strategy does not improve survival. The absence of a survival advantage may reflect the few studies in this area and the possibility that this issue has not been adequately studied. Because of the potential for both resistance and emergence of non-albicans isolates, clinicians must consider these issues when evaluating fluconazole prophylaxis in the SICU. Future trials should focus on more precisely identifying patients at high risk for fungal infections and on determining if broader use of fluconazole alters the distribution of candidal species seen in the SICU and impacts measures of resource utilization such as length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation.
authors.affiliation: Washington Hospital Center, Medstar, Potomac, MD, USA. afshorr@dnamail.com
authors.forename: Andrew F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Shorr
authors.forename: Kevin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Chung
authors.forename: William L
authors.initials: WL
authors.lastname: Jackson
authors.forename: Paige E
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Waterman
authors.forename: Marin H
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Kollef
mesh_terms: D000935:Antifungal Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002177:Candidiasis / Q000517:prevention & control; D016638:Critical Illness / Q000401:mortality; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D025141:Drug Resistance, Fungal; D004352:Drug Resistance, Microbial; D015725:Fluconazole / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016469:Fungemia / Q000517:prevention & control; D006801:Humans; D007362:Intensive Care Units; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D009181:Mycoses / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000517:prevention & control; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
chemical_list: D000935:Antifungal Agents; D015725:Fluconazole