ABSTRACT
Objective@#Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in older patients is a potentially life-threatening infection with a poorprognosis. Therefore, is important to predict the mortality rate of CAP for older patients. This study examined the effectsof predictive increases on CAP mortality by adding a biomarker to known CAP severity prediction tools. @*Methods@#A retrospective analysis of information was conducted on patients older than 65 years, who were treated withCAP in five emergency departments from October 2016 to February 2017. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality.The following were calculated for each patient: qSOFA (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), A-DROP (Age,Dehydration, Respiratory failure, Orientation, blood Pressure), CURB-65 (Confusion, Urea level, Respiratory rate, Bloodpressure, age≥65 years), SMART-COP (Systolic blood pressure, Multilobar infiltrates, Albumin, Respiratory rate,Tachycardia, Confusion, Oxygen and pH), NLR (neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio), PLR (platelet:lymphocyte ratio), and CAR(high-sensitivity C-reactive protein:albumin ratio). The prognostic value for the 28-day mortality was determined by multivariatelogistic regression analysis. @*Results@#The 28-day mortality was 12.0% of 693 CAP patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that lactate(odds ratio [OR], 1.589; P<0.001) and CAR (OR, 1.208; P=0.006) were correlated with the 28-day mortality. NLR(OR, 1.00; P=0.983) and PLR (OR, 1.00; P=0.784) were not correlated. The area under curve (AUC) was significant asCAR 0.649, lactate 0.737, and SMART-COP 0.735 (P<0.001), and the AUC of lactate+SMART-COP increased significantlyto 0.784 compared to SMART-COP (P=0.014). @*Conclusion@#A combination of lactate and SMART-COP can be used as a tool to assess the severity of older hospitalizedCAP patients who visited emergency departments.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test, which can be performed quickly and easily, is performed frequently in emergency rooms because of its high sensitivity and specificity. On the other hand, it is a relatively expensive test, and it is not known how it affects the clinicians' prescription of antibiotics. This study evaluated the clinical utility of the PUA test. METHODS: This study was conducted retrospectively on patients aged ≥18 years, who underwent a PUA test and were hospitalized with a diagnosis of pneumonia in an emergency room from January to December 2016. The patients were divided into a PUA test positive group and negative group, and the clinical characteristics and antibiotic regimen were compared. RESULTS: A total of 533 patients were enrolled, of which 54 were positive and 479 were negative. The antibiotic prescriptions were similar in the positive and negative groups. After the PUA test result, only two of the positive group used the antibiotics recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society for Streptococcus pneumoniae. Furthermore, there was an appropriate change in eight patients after the blood culture test, but the PUA test result was judged to be meaningful in only two patients. CONCLUSION: The results of the PUA test did not affect the clinician's antibiotic prescription significantly. A prescription standard for the PUA test is needed, and it should be performed after admission rather than in the emergency room.