4.3 Article

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with community-acquired, health-care-associated and hospital-acquired empyema

期刊

CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 781-788

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12416

关键词

empyema; community-acquired; health care-associated; hospital-acquired; outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and AimsPatients with pneumonia, a common cause of empyema, are stratified based on their risk factors, and the treatment of empyema might benefit from this risk stratification. MethodsThe etiology, bacteriologic profile and outcome of patients diagnosed with empyema in Shinko Hospital between May 2005 and October 2013 were retrospectively studied. The patients were stratified according to whether they had community-acquired empyema (CAE), health-care-associated empyema (HCAE) or hospital-acquired empyema (HAE). ResultsThe study included 81 patients, 25 CAE, 40 HCAE and 16 HAE. The comorbidity rate was highest among HAE patients (100%), followed by 95% of HCAE and 72% of CAE patients (P=0.005). The rates of cancer and central nervous system (CNS) disease were higher in patients with HCAE and HAE than in patients with CAE (P=0.030, P=0.018, respectively). Pleural fluid cultures were positive in 58/81 patients. Streptococcus species were the most common organisms cultured from CAE (12/15) and HCAE patients (17/30), but not from HAE patients (3/13). Anaerobic organisms were cultured from 3 CAE, 5 HCAE and 3 HAE patients. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were only cultured from HCAE and HAE patients. The mortality rates were higher in HCAE (18%) and HAE (50%) than in CAE (4%) patients (log-rank test: P=0.0012). ConclusionsHalf of patients with empyema were HCAE patients, who had comorbidities, bacteriological profile and outcome different from CAE patients. The patient with HCAE should be differentiated from CAE patient, and the stratification of patients based on risk factors may be useful for treatment strategy.

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