Blood Cultures Versus Respiratory Cultures: 2 Different Views of Pneumonia

Author:

Haessler Sarah1,Lindenauer Peter K23,Zilberberg Marya D45,Imrey Peter B67,Yu Pei-Chun6,Higgins Tom8,Deshpande Abhishek910,Rothberg Michael B79

Affiliation:

1. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA

2. Institute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science and Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA

3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

4. EviMed Research Group, LLC, Goshen, Massachusetts, USA

5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Medicine, University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

6. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

7. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

8. Center for Case Management, Natick, Massachusetts, USA

9. Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

10. Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Choice of empiric therapy for pneumonia depends on risk for antimicrobial resistance. Models to predict resistance are derived from blood and respiratory culture results. We compared these results to understand if organisms and resistance patterns differed by site. We also compared characteristics and outcomes of patients with positive cultures by site. Methods We studied adult patients discharged from 177 US hospitals from July 2010 through June 2015, with principal diagnoses of pneumonia, or principal diagnoses of respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory arrest, or sepsis with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia, and who had blood or respiratory cultures performed. Demographics, treatment, microbiologic results, and outcomes were examined. Results Among 138 561 hospitalizations of patients with pneumonia who had blood or respiratory cultures obtained at admission, 12 888 (9.3%) yielded positive cultures: 6438 respiratory cultures, 5992 blood cultures, and 458 both respiratory and blood cultures. Forty-two percent had isolates resistant to first-line therapy for community-acquired pneumonia. Isolates from respiratory samples were more often resistant than were isolates from blood (54.2% vs 26.6%; P < .001). Patients with both culture sites positive had higher case-fatality, longer lengths of stay, and higher costs than patients who had only blood or respiratory cultures positive. Among respiratory cultures, the most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (34%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17%), whereas blood cultures most commonly grew Streptococcus pneumoniae (33%), followed by S. aureus (22%). Conclusions Patients with positive respiratory tract cultures are clinically different from those with positive blood cultures, and resistance patterns differ by source. Models of antibiotic resistance should account for culture source.

Funder

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Infectious Diseases,Microbiology (medical)

Reference22 articles.

1. National hospital discharge survey: 2006 summary;Buie;Vital Health Stat 13,2010

2. Deaths: final data for 2006;Heron;Natl Vital Stat Rep,2009

3. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in a population-based study: link between etiology and patients characteristics, process-of-care, clinical evolution and outcomes;Capelastegui;BMC Infect Dis,2012

4. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia;American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America;Am J Respir Crit Care Med,2005

5. Healthcare-associated pneumonia does not accurately identify potentially resistant pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis;Chalmers;Clin Infect Dis,2014

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3