The CURB-65 score (Confusion, Urea .7 mmol?L -1 , Respiratory rate o30?min, low Blood pressure, and age o65 yrs) has been proposed as a tool for augmenting clinical judgement for stratifying patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) into different management groups.The six-point CURB-65 score was retrospectively applied in a prospective, consecutive cohort of adult patients with a diagnosis of CAP seen in the emergency department of a 400-bed teaching hospital from March 1, 2000 to February 29, 2004. A total of 1,100 inpatients and 676 outpatients were included.The 30-day mortality rate in the entire cohort increased directly with increasing CURB-65 score: 0, 1.1, 7.6, 21, 41.9 and 60% for CURB-65 scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The score was also significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation and rate of hospital admission in the entire cohort, and with duration of hospital stay among inpatients.The CURB-65 score (Confusion, Urea .7 mmol?L -1, Respiratory rate o30?min, low Blood pressure, and age o65 yrs), and a simpler CRB-65 score that omits the blood urea measurement, helps classify patients with community-acquired pneumonia into different groups according to the mortality risk and significantly correlates with community-acquired pneumonia management key points. The new score can also be used as a severity adjustment measure.

A simple score using clinical data available at the time of the emergency department visit provides a practical diagnostic decision aid, and predicts the development of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

This study, which was performed with an adequate, controlled before-and-after intervention design, demonstrated significant improvements in both process-of-care and outcome indicators after implementation of a guideline for treating CAP.

No abstract

BackgroundThe etiologic profile of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) for each age group could be similar among inpatients and outpatients. This fact brings up the link between etiology of CAP and its clinical evolution and outcome. Furthermore, the majority of pneumonia etiologic studies are based on hospitalized patients, whereas there have been no recent population-based studies encompassing both inpatients and outpatients.MethodsTo evaluate the etiology of CAP, and the relationship among the different pathogens of CAP to patients characteristics, process-of-care, clinical evolution and outcomes, a prospective population-based study was conducted in Spain from April 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. Patients (age >18) with CAP were identified through the family physicians and the hospital area.ResultsA total of 700 patients with etiologic evaluation were included: 276 hospitalized and 424 ambulatory patients. We were able to define the aetiology of pneumonia in 55.7% (390/700). The most frequently isolated organism was S. pneumoniae (170/390, 43.6%), followed by C. burnetti (72/390, 18.5%), M. pneumoniae (62/390, 15.9%), virus as a group (56/390, 14.4%), Chlamydia species (39/390, 106%), and L. pneumophila (17/390, 4.4%). The atypical pathogens and the S. pneumoniae are present in pneumonias of a wide spectrum of severity and age. Patients infected by conventional bacteria were elderly, had a greater hospitalization rate, and higher mortality within 30 days.ConclusionsOur study provides information about the etiology of CAP in the general population. The microbiology of CAP remains stable: infections by conventional bacteria result in higher severity, and the S. pneumoniae remains the most important pathogen. However, atypical pathogens could also infect patients in a wide spectrum of severity and age.

The current authors developed a new prediction rule based on the five risk classes defined by the Pneumonia Severity Index to identify allocation of inpatient care in community-acquired pneumonia.The decision to hospitalise in low-risk classes (I-III) was unquestionable, if the presence of one or more of the following were evident: arterial oxygen tensionv8.0 kPa (60 mmHg), shock, decompensated coexisting illnesses, pleural effusion, inability to maintain oral intake, social problem, and lack of response to previous adequate empirical antibiotic therapy.The results at 18 months after implementation of this new prediction rule are reported in a series of 616 patients. The mortality rate was 0.5% in 221 patients treated as outpatients versus 8.9% in 395 patients treated as inpatients. Specific additional criteria for hospitalisation included in the prediction rule were present in 106 of the 178 low-risk patients treated as inpatients, whereas in the remaining 72, the decision to hospitalise was apparently unjustified by the prediction rule. These 72 patients showed a better outcome (significantly shorter hospitalisation, days on intravenous antibiotics, mortality, and complicated course) than high-risk patients and low-risk patients who met the additional specific criteria for deciding hospital admission.Therefore, admission in these low-risk patients might have been avoided by strict adherence to the new prediction rule. Another relevant finding was that the Pneumonia Severity Index alone did not identify all patients who needed to be admitted to the hospital. Eur Respir J 2003; 21: 695-701.

No abstract

No abstract