Prophylactic fluconazole does not improve outcome in patients with purulent and fecal peritonitis due to lower gastrointestinal perforation

Abstract

The benefit of anticandida treatment in addition to standard antibiotic therapy in the presence of perforation/leakage of the lower gastrointestinal tract (LGIT) is still controversial.We retrospectively assessed the clinical effects of empiric anticandida treatment in patients with LGIT perforation who had undergone exploratory laparotomy due to perforated/leaking bowel or appendix between 1999 and 2004, including generalized fecal/purulent peritonitis. Two groups of patients emerged: those receiving empiric anticandida treatment (fluconazole, n = 24) and those who did not (n = 77). All the fluconazole-treated and 40/77 nonfluconazole-treated patients required intensive care unit care and were the subject of this assessment. Postoperative candida infection and mortality rates were similar in the critically-ill fluconazole-treated and nontreated patients (4% vs 7%, 21%vs 22.5%, respectively, P = NS); resistant candidiasis rates were also similar. Hospital and intensive care unit stays were longer in the treated group, however not reaching statistical difference (26.5 ± 18 vs 21.4 ± 18.3 days, 14.8 ± 14.2 vs 9.3 ± 14.1 days, respectively). The rates of morbidity, pneumonia, and multiorgan failure were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the treated patients (87% vs 63%, 37% vs 7.5%, and 58% vs 35%, respectively). Empiric fluconazole in patients with peritonitis associated with LGIT perforation did not improve patients' outcome compared with those without empiric treatment.