4.3 Article

WHO NEEDS A BLOOD CULTURE? A PROSPECTIVELY DERIVED AND VALIDATED PREDICTION RULE

期刊

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 255-264

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.04.001

关键词

blood cultures; bacteremia; decision rule; sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study objective was to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for obtaining blood cultures in Emergency Department (ED) patients with suspected infection. This was a prospective, observational cohort study of consecutive adult ED patients with blood cultures obtained. The study rail from February 1, 2000 through February 1, 2001. Patients were randomly assigned to derivation (2/3) or validation (1/3) sets. The outcome was true bacteremia. Features of the history, co-morbid illness, physical examination, and laboratory testing were used to create a clinical decision rule. Among 3901 patients, 3730 (96%) were enrolled with 305 (8.2%) episodes of true bacteremia. A decision rule was created with major criteria defined as: temperature > 39.5 degrees C (103.0 degrees F), indwelling vascular catheter, or clinical suspicion of endocarditis. Minor criteria were: temperature 38.3-39.4 degrees C (101-102.9 degrees F), age > 65 years, chills, vomiting, hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg), neutrophil% > 80, white blood cell count > 18 k, bands > 5%, platelets < 150 k, and creatinine > 2.0. A blood culture is indicated by the rule if at least one major criterion or two minor criteria are present. Otherwise, patients are classified as low risk and cultures may be omitted. Only 4 (0.6%) low-risk patients in the derivation set and 3 (0.9%) low-risk patients in the validation set had positive cultures. The sensitivity was 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96-100%) (derivation) and 97% (95% CI 94-100%) (validation). We developed and validated a promising clinical decision rule for predicting bacteremia in patients with suspected infection. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.3
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