Allisonbartlett0674

y improve such symptoms.

Critical illness survivorship is associated with new and worsening physical, cognitive, and emotional status. Survivors are vulnerable to further health set-backs, most commonly because of infection and exacerbation of chronic medical conditions. Awareness of survivors' challenges are important given the anticipated rise in critical illness survivors because of SARS-CoV-2 viral sepsis.

Studies continue to document challenges of critical illness survivorship. Beyond the cognitive, physical, and mental health sequelae encompassed by postintensive case syndrome, patients commonly experience persistent immunosuppression, re-hospitalization, inability to resume prior employment, and reduced quality of life. Although recommended practices for enhancing recovery from sepsis are associated with better outcomes, only a minority of patients receive all recommended practices. ICU follow-up programs or peer support groups remain important interventions to learn about and address the multifaceted challenges of critical illness survivorship, but there is little evidence of benefit to date.

Survivors of sepsis and critical illness commonly experience impaired health status, reduced quality of life, and inability to return to prior employment. Although the challenges of critical illness survivorship are increasingly well documented, there are relatively few studies on enhancing recovery. Future studies must focus on identifying best practices for optimizing recovery and strategies to promote their implementation.

Survivors of sepsis and critical illness commonly experience impaired health status, reduced quality of life, and inability to return to prior employment. Although the challenges of critical illness survivorship are increasingly well documented, there are relatively few studies on enhancing recovery. Future studies must focus on identifying best practices for optimizing recovery and strategies to promote their implementation.

To highlight recent findings on the adequate duration of antifungal therapy in patients with invasive fungal disease (IFD).

Plenty of published data available suggest that there is no additional clinical benefit at a certain point after initiation of antifungal treatment in patients with confirmed IFD. Moreover, the prolonged antifungal exposure can be associated with an increased risk of side effects and toxicity as well as striking risk for developing antifungal resistance or rising unnecessary healthcare costs. Recent data suggest that, in the presence of an adequate initial antifungal therapy and adequate source control of the infection, new stratified approaches integrating clinical judgment, biomarkers and microbiological eradication, should be considered as an alternative to the 'one-size-fits-all' treatment duration currently used worldwide.

The optimal duration of antifungal therapy is still an unresolved issue that depends by many key elements including the host; the pathogen and its microbiological eradication, the adequateness of initial antifungal therapy and the promptness of source control of the infection. In general, many patients with invasive candidiasis can be treated with a 2 weeks course of antifungal therapy. Longer antifungal course (6 weeks or more) is generally required for patients with invasive aspergilosis.

The optimal duration of antifungal therapy is still an unresolved issue that depends by many key elements including the host; the pathogen and its microbiological eradication, the adequateness of initial antifungal therapy and the promptness of source control of the infection. In general, many patients with invasive candidiasis can be treated with a 2 weeks course of antifungal therapy. Longer antifungal course (6 weeks or more) is generally required for patients with invasive aspergilosis.

Short-term intravascular catheters are instrumental in the care of critically ill patients. Despite their benefits, they also are potential entries for systemic infections. Ferroptosis signaling pathway There is a growing body of literature on catheter use and the prevention of intravascular catheter infections in intensive care. This review highlights major recent contributions to the topic and put them into perspective to recommendations on best practice procedures.

Many studies published in the last years have evaluated prevention strategies applying technology and addressing behavior change. Skin disinfection with 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) and CHG-impregnated dressings are increasingly used in clinical practice. However, the role of universal CHG bathing remains controversial. A number of new and innovative technologies are in development. Recent qualitative research offers new perspectives about behavior change interventions to improve implementation.

Many options for effective intravascular catheter infection prevention are currently available. A number of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses not only confirmed measures targeting best practice and technology at catheter insertion and catheter care but also challenged interventions, such as CHG bathing. More focus should be put to implementation strategies.

Many options for effective intravascular catheter infection prevention are currently available. A number of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses not only confirmed measures targeting best practice and technology at catheter insertion and catheter care but also challenged interventions, such as CHG bathing. More focus should be put to implementation strategies.

The traditional approach to sepsis treatment utilizes broad-spectrum antibiotics. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of infected patients have 'culture-negative' sepsis despite appropriate microbiologic assessment.

There has been increased interest in the past decade on the treatment of culture-negative sepsis. Outcome data comparing culture-negative sepsis with culture-positive sepsis are mixed and it is unclear if culture-negative sepsis is a distinct entity. Recent recommendations promoting antibiotic de-escalation in culture-negative sepsis can be difficult to implement. A variety of strategies have been suggested for limiting antibiotic courses among patients with negative cultures, including limiting antibiotic durations, use of antibiotic stewardship programs, early consideration of narrow antibiotics, rapid diagnostic technology, and eliminating anti-MRSA therapy based on surveillance swabs.

Owing to the difficulty inherent in studying the lack of positive data, and to the uncertainty surrounding diagnosis in patients with culture-negative sepsis, prospective data to guide antibiotic choices are lacking.