IntroductionThe diffusion of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria has created the need to identify risk factors for acquiring resistant pathogens in patients living in the community.ObjectiveTo analyze clinical features of patients with community-onset pneumonia due to MDR pathogens, to evaluate performance of existing scoring tools and to develop a bedside risk score for an early identification of these patients in the Emergency Department.Patients and MethodsThis was an open, observational, prospective study of consecutive patients with pneumonia, coming from the community, from January 2011 to January 2013. The new score was validated on an external cohort of 929 patients with pneumonia admitted in internal medicine departments participating at a multicenter prospective study in Spain.ResultsA total of 900 patients were included in the study. The final logistic regression model consisted of four variables: 1) one risk factor for HCAP, 2) bilateral pulmonary infiltration, 3) the presence of pleural effusion, and 4) the severity of respiratory impairment calculated by use of PaO2/FiO2 ratio. A new risk score, the ARUC score, was developed; compared to Aliberti, Shorr, and Shindo scores, this point score system has a good discrimination performance (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.82) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow, χ2 = 7.64; p = 0.469). The new score outperformed HCAP definition in predicting etiology due to MDR organism. The performance of this bedside score was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.77).ConclusionPhysicians working in ED should adopt simple risk scores, like ARUC score, to select the most appropriate antibiotic regimens. This individualized approach may help clinicians to identify those patients who need an empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy.

Patients with pneumonia treated in the internal medicine department (IMD) are often at risk of healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). The importance of HCAP is controversial. We invited physicians from 72 IMDs to report on all patients with pneumonia hospitalized in their department during 2 weeks (one each in January and June 2010) to compare HCAP with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). We analysed 1002 episodes of pneumonia: 58.9% were CAP, 30.6% were HCAP and 10.4% were HAP. A comparison between CAP, HCAP and HAP showed that HCAP patients were older (77, 83 and 80.5 years; p < 0.001), had poorer functional status (Barthel 100, 30 and 65; p < 0.001) and had more risk factors for aspiration pneumonia (18, 50 and 34%; p < 0.001). The frequency of testing to establish an aetiological diagnosis was lower among HCAP patients (87, 72 and 79; p < 0.001), as was adherence to the therapeutic recommendations of guidelines (70, 23 and 56%; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality increased progressively between CAP, HCAP and HAP (8, 19 and 27%; p < 0.001). Streptococcus pneumoniae was the main pathogen in CAP and HCAP. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) caused 17 and 12.3% of HCAP. In patients with a confirmed aetiological diagnosis, the independent risk factors for pneumonia due do difficult-to-treat microorganisms (Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa or MRSA) were HCAP, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and higher Port Severity Index. Our data confirm the importance of maintaining high awareness of HCAP among patients treated in IMDs, because of the different aetiologies, therapy requirements and prognosis of this population.

Pneumonia remains a frequent problem in SOT recipients, although it occurs later in patients who are in better physical health. Therefore, harmful pathogens and worse outcome are less common than previously thought.

No abstract

No abstract