4.3 Article

Pleural infection in a New Zealand centre: high incidence in Pacific people and RAPID score as a prognostic tool

Journal

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 703-709

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imj.13087

Keywords

pleural infection; deprivation; New Zealand; Pacific; RAPID

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Whilst there is an increase in incidence of pleural infection worldwide, there is a paucity of New Zealand data. Aims: This study looked at the epidemiology of pleural infection in a single New Zealand institution and evaluated the RAPID score as a prognostic tool. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on patients with pleural infection over a 3-year period. Pleural infection was defined as having clinical evidence of infection and fulfilling one of the following: (i) positive pleural fluid Gram stain or culture, (ii) frank pus, (iii) pH < 7.2 or (iv) radiological evidence of complex effusion. Results: There were 108 patients; 76% were male, and mean age was 54 years. Two thirds of patients came from the most deprived areas. The dominant ethnic group was Pacific people (42%), which was twice as high as the Pacific population in the area (19%), P < 0.0001. After adjusting for deprivation, Pacific people were still over-represented, P = 0.0002. There were 14 deaths (13%), and these were associated with increasing age (P = 0.001) and urea (P = 0.007) but not ethnicity or socioeconomic deprivation. The RAPID score found that those in the high-risk (P = 0.026) and moderate-risk (P = 0.036) groups had significantly higher mortality compared with the low-risk group. Conclusion: The over-representation of Pacific people with pleural infection is not fully explained by socioeconomic deprivation, highlighting other factors at play, such as genetic susceptibility. The RAPID score was of clinical utility in predicting mortality in our population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available