4.3 Article

Management of Severe Community-acquired Septic Meningitis in Adults: From Emergency Department to Intensive Care Unit

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE FORMOSAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 112-118

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60041-3

关键词

emergency department; intensive care unit; meningitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: To study the clinical features, diagnostic processes, timing of antibiotic administration and outcomes of patients with severe community-acquired septic meningitis at an emergency department (ED), who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Methods: From January 1993 to December 2005, the medical records of patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of community-acquired septic meningitis were reviewed. The clinical characteristics, including causative pathogens, treatment course, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 40 patients were included, with an overall inhospital mortality rate of 77.5%. The most common pathogen was Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=20, 50%), followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=6, 15%), and Crptococcus neoformans (n=5, 12.5%). There was a mean duration of 8.9 hours between ED arrival and initiation of antibiotic therapy. Effective antibiotics were administered for a mean period of 23.8 hours after arrival. Time delay from ED arrival to ICU admission was correlated with time delay of effective antibiotics administration, head computed tomography, and cerebrospinal fluid study (r=0.32, 0.47, and 0.53, respectively; p=0.05, 0.006, and 0.001, respectively). Earlier ICU admission was demonstrated in survivors as compared with those who died (11.1 us. 38.0 hours, p=0.01). Conclusion: Severe septic meningitis remains a disease with high mortality and morbidity. Expeditious diagnostic processes with early appropriate antibiotic treatment and ICU admission at the ED are important in improving the quality of care and patient outcome. [J Formos Med Assoc 2009;108(2):112-118]

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