4.3 Article

BLOOD CULTURE RESULTS DO NOT AFFECT TREATMENT IN COMPLICATED CELLULITIS

期刊

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 163-166

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.01.016

关键词

cellulitis; blood cultures; immunocompromise; human immunodeficiency virus; diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cellulitis, a frequently encountered complaint in the Emergency Department, is typically managed with antibiotics. There is some debate as to whether obtaining blood cultures and knowing their results would change the management of cellulitis, although most authors argue that information from blood cultures does not change the empirical management of uncomplicated cellulitis. However, for complicated cellulitis (as defined by the presence of significant comorbidity), there is considerable disagreement and lack of evidence as to the utility of blood cultures. Objective: Our aim was to determine the role of blood cultures in the management of complicated cellulitis. Methods: This retrospective chart review assessed the utility of obtaining blood cultures in complicated cellulitis (as defined by active chemotherapy, dialysis, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome, diabetes, or organ transplantation) vs. a cohort of individuals without medical comorbidity. Results: Six hundred and thirty-nine patients were identified, 314 of which were deemed cases and 325 controls. Within the cases, 29 of 314 returned as positive blood cultures vs. 17 of 325 positive blood culture controls within the cases (p = 0.05; odds ratio = 1.84; 95% confidence interval 0.99-3.43). A clinically significant change in management (a change in the class of antibiotic) was found in 6 of 314 cases vs. 4 of 325 controls (p = 0.578; odds ratio = 1.5525; 95% confidence interval 0.434-5.5541). Conclusions: Within this cohort of patients with complicated cellulitis, blood cultures rarely changed management from empirical coverage. (C) 2013 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