Time to positivity as a diagnostic tool for catheter-related candidemia: A species-specific analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: Early identification of the source of candidemia is critical for catheter management. Time to positivity (TTP) is an accessible marker of catheter-related bloodstream infection in bacteremia, but its role in candidemia remains unclear. We evaluated the ability of TTP to predict catheter-related candidemia across major species and compared its performance with differential time to positivity (DTP). METHODS: Single-center retrospective study assessing the diagnostic utility and optimal TTP cut-offs for catheter-related candidemia. Predictors of catheter-related source were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 544 episodes, 407 were analyzed. In C. albicans (n = 133) and C. parapsilosis (n = 100), TTP differed significantly by source. In C. albicans, TTP ≤27 h predicted catheter-related candidemia (sensitivity 71.8%, specificity 70.2%, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) 50.0%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) 85.7%) and was the only independent predictor (OR 5.1 [2.1-12.1], P < 0.001). In C. parapsilosis, TTP ≤35 h showed sensitivity 77.5%, specificity 51.7%, PPV 51.7%, NPV 77.5%, and remained independently associated (OR 3.1 [1.2-8.0], P = 0.017). Although DTP ≥2 h was more frequent in catheter-related candidemia by C. parapsilosis, the TTP ≤35 h was the strongest predictor. CONCLUSION: TTP outperformed DTP in identifying catheter-related sources in C. albicans and C. parapsilosis candidemia and may support timely catheter management.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Time to positivity as a diagnostic tool for catheter-related candidemia: A species-specific analysis
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.