Federico Piffer

Low CURB-65 is of limited value in deciding discharge of patients with community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND The relationship between clinical judgment and indications of the CURB-65 score in deciding the site-of-care for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate reasons for hospitalization of CAP patients with CURB-65 score of 0 and 1. METHODS An observational, retrospective study of consecutive CAP patients was performed at the Fondazione Cà Granda, Milan, Italy, between January 2005 and December 2006. The medical records of hospitalized patients with CAP having a CURB-65 score of 0 and 1 were identified and reviewed to determine whether there existed a clinical basis to justify hospitalization. RESULTS Among the 580 patients included in the study, 218 were classified with a CURB-65 score of 0 or 1. Among those, 127 were hospitalized, and reasons that justified hospitalization were found in 104 (83%) patients. Main reasons for hospitalization included the presence of hypoxemia on admission (35%), failure of outpatient therapy (14%) and the presence of cardiovascular events on admission (9.7%). Used as the sole indicator for inappropriate hospitalization, the CURB-65 score had a poor positive predictive value of 52%. CONCLUSIONS Although the CURB-65 has been proposed as a tool to guide the site of care decision by international guidelines, this score is not ideal by itself, and should not be regarded as providing decision support information if a score of 0 and 1 is present. In CAP patients with CURB-65 scores of 0 or 1, further evaluations should be performed and completed by clinical judgment.

Prophylactic antibiotic therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a huge epidemiological burden and is associated with a high incidence of morbidity and mortality. The disease is characterized by chronic inflammation and bacterial colonization. Chronic bacterial colonization leads to chronic inflammation and epithelial damage that in turn may increase bacterial colonization and predispose to acute bacterial infection. Acute exacerbations are a major cause of hospitalization and lead to a deterioration in pulmonary function. Antibiotic treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations is a cornerstone of medical treatment. Conversely, the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in COPD in the stable state is controversial. From a theoretical point of view, antibiotic prophylaxis is intriguing as it could break the vicious circle between chronic bacterial colonization, inflammation and epithelial damage; however, evidence is scarce. This paper reviews the literature and focuses on the most recent data shedding light on this fascinating dilemma.

Acidemia does not affect outcomes of patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema treated with continuous positive airway pressure

IntroductionA lack of data exists in the literature evaluating acidemia on admission as a favorable or negative prognostic factor in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of acidemia on admission on outcomes of ACPE patients treated with CPAP.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational study of consecutive patients admitted with a diagnosis of ACPE to the Emergency Department of IRCCS Fondazione Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy, between January 2003 and December 2006, treated with CPAP on admission. Two groups of patients were identified: subjects with acidemia (acidotic group), and those with a normal pH on admission (controls). The primary endpoint was clinical failure, defined as switch to bi-level ventilation, switch to endotracheal intubation or inhospital mortality.ResultsAmong the 378 patients enrolled, 290 (77%) were acidotic on admission. A total of 28 patients (9.7%) in the acidotic group and eight patients (9.1%) among controls experienced a clinical failure (odds ratio = 1.069, 95% confidence interval = 0.469 to 2.438, P = 0.875). Survival analysis indicates that, among acidotic patients, the time at which 50% of patients reached the 7.35 threshold was 173 minutes (95% confidence interval = 153 to 193). Neither acidemia (P = 0.205) nor the type of acidosis on admission (respiratory acidosis, P = 0.126; metabolic acidosis, P = 0.292; mixed acidosis, P = 0.397) affected clinical failure after adjustment for clinical and laboratory factors in a multivariable logistic regression model.ConclusionsNeither acidemia nor the type of acidosis on admission should be considered risk factors for adverse outcomes in ACPE patients treated with CPAP.

Usefulness of simplified acute physiology score II in predicting mortality in patients admitted to an emergency medicine ward

The Objective of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the applicability of the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) in patients admitted to an Emergency Medicine Ward in the Emergency Medicine Ward of a tertiary university hospital. We studied consecutive patients admitted to an Emergency Medicine Ward from the emergency department. The SAPS II was assessed in predicting overall in-hospital mortality in terms of sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. A total of 211 consecutive patients were admitted over a period of 2 months. Median SAPS II score was 28 (range 6–93), with a mean risk of in-hospital mortality of 0.17 (range 0.01–0.97) for the whole population, and an observed mortality of 15%. The area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) was 0.84 (0.77–0.91). Considering a cut-off value of SAPS II of 49, the sensitivity was 0.50 (95% CI 0.42–0.56), the specificity was 0.95 (0.92–0.98), the positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.64 (0.58–0.71), and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.91 (0.87–0.95), the positive likelihood ratio (pLH) was 9.9, and the negative likelihood ratio (nLH) was 0.5. If contrarily a cut-off value of SAPS II of 22 were used, the sensitivity would be 1.0, the specificity would be 0.21 (0.16–0.26), the PPV would be 0.18 (0.13–0.23), the NPV would be 1.0, the pLH would be 1.3, and the nLH would be 0.0. In this preliminary study, SAPS II predicted in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to an Emergency Ward.

Cefditoren versus levofloxacin in patients with exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: serum inflammatory biomarkers, clinical efficacy, and microbiological eradication.

Background The aim of this open-label, randomized, parallel-group pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of cefditoren pivoxil and levofloxacin in terms of speed of reduction in inflammatory parameters, clinical recovery, and microbiological eradication. Methods Forty eligible patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) were randomized to receive cefditoren 200 mg twice a day for 5 days (n = 20) or levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 7 days (n = 20). Results The inflammatory parameters which were significantly reduced at test-of-cure with respect to visit 1 were Krebs von den Lundgen-6 (KL-6) and interleukin-6. KL-6 decreased both in the overall study population (from 19 ± 11 UI/mL to 6 ± 8 UI/mL, P = 0.000) and in the cefditoren (from 19 ± 13 UI/mL to 8 ± 10 UI/mL, P = 0.006) and levofloxacin (from 19 ± 10 UI/mL to 5 ± 5 UI/mL, P = 0.000) arms. Similarly, interleukin-6 decreased both in the overall study population (from 13.35 ± 16.41 pg/mL to 3 ± 4.7 pg/mL, P = 0.000) and in the cefditoren (from 15.90 ± 19.54 pg/mL to 4.13 ± 6.42 pg/mL, P = 0.015) and levofloxacin (from 10.80 ± 12.55 pg/mL to 1.87 ± 1.16 pg/mL, P = 0.003) arms. At the end of treatment (test-of-cure, 6–9 days after drug initiation), the clinical success rate in the overall study population was 78%; the clinical cure rate was 80% in the cefditoren arm and 75% in the levofloxacin arm. Globally, bacteriological eradication at test-of-cure was obtained in 85% of the overall study population. Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion Cefditoren represents a valid option in the treatment of mild to moderately severe cases of AECB in the outpatient care setting. Moreover, the use of this cephalosporin is associated with a significant reduction of interleukin-6 and KL-6, two key mediators of lung inflammation and epithelial damage.