4.2 Article

Multicenter survey on hospital-acquired pneumonia and the clinical efficacy of first-line antibiotics in Japan

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 245-254

出版社

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.47.0577

关键词

antibiotics; guidelines; hospital-acquired pneumonia; surveillance

资金

  1. Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the pathophysiology of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and the clinical efficacy of its first-line treatment and to examine the validity of the Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS) Guidelines for management of HAP. Methodology The observational survey was conducted during the period of June 2002-May 2004 and patients with HAP were prospectively surveyed using the consecutive enrollment method. A total of 1,356 patients from 254 hospitals nationwide were analyzed. Clinical response to first-line antibiotics was evaluated at the end of the medication. Results The 30-day mortality rate was 19.8%. Patients were classified into four groups according to the JRS guideline criteria. There were remarkable variances in the number of cases of each group. Mild/moderate pneumonia with no risk factors (group I) accounted for 0.3% of all cases. The mortality rate tended to be higher, as clinical conditions became more serious (group II < III < IV). Alternatively, though categorized in the same group (group III), there was a difference in the mortality rate by the severity of pneumonia (severe cases 32.2% vs. moderate cases 11.0%). First-line medication using carbapenems accounted for 61.7% of total cases. The efficacy rate of guideline-concordant therapy was significantly higher than that of guideline-discordant therapy (54.2% vs. 41.7%). Conclusions This is the first nationwide study on HAP in Japan. The clinical characteristics and prognosis of HAP were elucidated. Review of the current classification of the disease is required and these results provide valuable information for the next revision of the guidelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据