This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Open AccessReview
Should Empiric Anti-Fungals Be Administered Routinely for All Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers? A Critical Review of the Existing Literature
by
Kai Siang Chan
Kai Siang Chan 1,2,*
,
Lee Yee Calista Tan
Lee Yee Calista Tan 1,
Sunder Balasubramaniam
Sunder Balasubramaniam 2 and
Vishal G. Shelat
Vishal G. Shelat 1,2,3
1
Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 308232, Singapore
2
Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore 308433, Singapore
3
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2024, 13(7), 547; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070547 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 6 May 2024
/
Revised: 20 June 2024
/
Accepted: 26 June 2024
/
Published: 28 June 2024
Abstract
A perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a surgical emergency with a high mortality rate. PPUs cause secondary peritonitis due to bacterial and fungal peritoneal contamination. Surgery is the main treatment modality and patient’s comorbidites impacts perioperative morbidity and surgical outcomes. Even after surgery, resuscitation efforts should continue. While empiric antibiotics are recommended, the role of empiric anti-fungal treatment is unclear due to a lack of scientific evidence. This literature review demonstrated a paucity of studies evaluating the role of empiric anti-fungals in PPUs, and with conflicting results. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of patient demographics and underlying surgical pathology (PPUs vs. any gastrointestinal perforation), type of anti-fungal agent, timing of administration and duration of use. Other considerations include the need to differentiate between fungal colonization vs. invasive fungal infection. Despite positive fungal isolates from fluid culture, it is important for clinical judgement to identify the right group of patients for anti-fungal administration. Biochemistry investigations including new fungal biomarkers may help to guide management. Multidisciplinary discussions may help in decision making for this conundrum. Moving forward, further research may be conducted to select the right group of patients who may benefit from empiric anti-fungal use.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chan, K.S.; Tan, L.Y.C.; Balasubramaniam, S.; Shelat, V.G.
Should Empiric Anti-Fungals Be Administered Routinely for All Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers? A Critical Review of the Existing Literature. Pathogens 2024, 13, 547.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070547
AMA Style
Chan KS, Tan LYC, Balasubramaniam S, Shelat VG.
Should Empiric Anti-Fungals Be Administered Routinely for All Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers? A Critical Review of the Existing Literature. Pathogens. 2024; 13(7):547.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070547
Chicago/Turabian Style
Chan, Kai Siang, Lee Yee Calista Tan, Sunder Balasubramaniam, and Vishal G. Shelat.
2024. "Should Empiric Anti-Fungals Be Administered Routinely for All Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers? A Critical Review of the Existing Literature" Pathogens 13, no. 7: 547.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070547
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details
here.
Article Metrics
Article Access Statistics
For more information on the journal statistics, click
here.
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.