4.5 Article

Bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic/urinary antigen-positive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia compared

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-014-2209-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The diagnosis of invasive pneumococcal pneumonia is based mainly on bacteraemia. Episodes without bacteraemia, but with a positive urinary antigen test (UAT), are considered non-invasive. We determined differences in outcome between patients with bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Adult patients with clinical and radiological evidence of CAP with blood cultures and UAT tests performed at presentation in three Dutch laboratories between June 2008 and May 2010 were included. Clinical characteristics were retrospectively extracted from hospital records. Overall, 168 patients had non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive pneumococcal CAP and 123 had bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP. The day-30 mortality was 9 % and 13 % for non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive and bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP patients, respectively [risk difference -4 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -11 % to +3 %, p = 0.28]. In a multivariable logistic regression model, age a parts per thousand yen65 years, admission to the intensive care unit/coronary care unit (ICU/CCU) and presence of an immunocompromising condition were associated with day-30 mortality. A non-significant association with mortality was found for bacteraemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95 % CI 0.94-5.21, p = 0.07). No such trend was found for UAT positivity. The median lengths of hospital stay were 8 [interquartile range (IQR) 5-14] and 10 (IQR 6-18) days for non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive and bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP patients, respectively (p = 0.05). As compared to non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive pneumococcal CAP, bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP has a stronger association with day-30 mortality.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available