4.7 Article

Severity of Pneumococcal Pneumonia Associated With Genomic Bacterial Load

期刊

CHEST
卷 136, 期 3, 页码 832-840

出版社

AMER COLL CHEST PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.1378/chest.09-0258

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is a clinical need for more objective methods of identifying patients at risk for septic shock and poorer outcomes among those with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). As viral load is useful in viral infections, we hypothesized that bacterial load may be associated with outcomes in patients with pneumococcal pneumonia. Methods: Quantification of Streptococcus pneumoniae DNA level by real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) was prospectively conducted on whole-blood samples from a cohort of 353 patients who were displaying CAP symptoms upon their admission to the ED. Results: CAP caused by S pneumoniae was documented in 93 patients (36.5% with positive blood culture findings). A positive S pneumoniae rt-PCR assay finding was associated with a statistically significant higher mortality (odds ratio [OR], 7.08), risk for shock (OR, 6.29), and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) [OR, 7.96]. Logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and pneumonia severity index class, revealed bacterial load as independently associated with septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.42; 95% Cl, 1.10 to 5.80) and the need for MV (aOR, 2.71; 95% Cl, 1.17 to 6.27). An S pneumoniae bacterial load of >= 10(3) copies per milliliter occurred in 29.0% of patients (27 of 93 patients; 95% Cl, 20.8 to 38.9%) being associated with a statistically significant higher risk for septic shock (OR, 8.00), the need for MV (OR, 10.50), and hospital mortality (OR, 5.43). Conclusion: In patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, bacterial load is associated with the likelihood of death, the risk of septic shock, and the need for MV. High genomic bacterial load for S pneumoniae may be a useful tool for severity assessment. (CHEST 2009; 136:832-840)

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

4.7
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