Community-acquired pneumonia.

Despite the remarkable advances in antibiotic therapies, diagnostic tools, prevention campaigns and intensive care, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is still among the primary causes of death worldwide, and there have been no significant changes in mortality in the last decades. The clinical and economic burden of CAP makes it a major public health problem, particularly for children and the elderly. This issue provides a clinical overview of CAP, focusing on epidemiology, economic burden, diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment, clinical management, and prevention. Particular attention is given to some aspects related to the clinical management of CAP, such as the microbial etiology and the available tools to achieve it, the usefulness of new and old biomarkers, and antimicrobial and other non-antibiotic adjunctive therapies. Possible scenarios in which pneumonia does not respond to treatment are also analyzed to improve clinical outcomes of CAP.

Tratamiento antimicrobiano de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica en el anciano / Antimicrobial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the elderly

No disponible

No disponible

Tratamiento antimicrobiano de la EPOC en el anciano / No disponible

No disponible

[Recommendations for the treatment of severe in-hospital pneumonia. Spanish Society of Critical, Coronary, and Intensive Medicine. Spanish Society for Respiratory Tract Pathology. Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology]. / Recomendaciones para el tratamiento de la neumonía intrahospitalaria grave. Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Critica y Coronarias. Sociedad Española de Patología del Aparato Respiratorio. Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica.

INTRODUCTION: Given the sanitary repercussion of serious intrahospital pneumonia (SIP), representatives of three scientific societies (SEMICYUC; SEPAR and SEIMC) have developed during 2002 and 2003 a practical guide for its treatment. METHOD: A task force was constituted to value five clinical situations related with the treatment of SIP: 1) critical revision of the existent guidelines and groups of risk definition; 2) entry criteria in ICU for SIP; 3) SIP treatment in function of the groups of risk; 4) special situations in SIP treatment, and 5) control treatment. After the bibliographical revision drafts were developed and discussed until the elaboration of the final document. RESULTS: It is necessary the stratification of the patients according to the presence or not of risk factors in order to make an appropriate use of treatments. SIP without risk factors can be treated with monotherapy with several antibiotics. SIP with risk factors specifies therapy combined with betalactamic plus aminoglycoside. Its substitution for a quinolon is a topic debate. Infections for multiresistance microorganisms require an individualized approach that can end up including the use of topical antibiotics. In SIP without microorganism isolation the use of a score system can be of utility in the taking of decisions. Revision of the therapeutic rule after 72 hours, carrying out the necessary adjustments according to the clinical evolution and microbiological results is necessary in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific evidence in the treatment of SIP allows the development of different strategies to achieve a higher efficiency both in antibiotic handling and in the control of its evolution.

Recomendaciones para el tratamiento de la neumonía intrahospitalaria grave / Recommendations for the treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia

No disponible

[Diagnostic value of quantitative cultures of endotracheal aspirate in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter study]. / Valor diagnóstico del cultivo cuantitativo del aspirado endotraqueal en la neumonía adquirida durante la ventilación mecánica. Estudio multicéntrico.

OBJECTIVE: To study the validity of quantitative cultures of tracheal aspirate (TA) in comparison with the plugged telescoping catheter (PTC) for the diagnosis of mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia. METHOD: Prospective multicenter study enrolling patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer than 72 hours. TA samples were collected from patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia, followed by PTC sampling. Quantitative cultures were performed on all samples. Patients were classified according to the presence or not of pneumonia, based on clinical and radiologic criteria, clinical course and autopsy findings. The cutoff points were > or = 103 colony-forming units (cfu)/mL for PTC cultures; the TA cutoffs analyzed were > or = 105 and > or = 106 cfu/mL. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients studied, 84 had diagnoses of pneumonia and 36 did not (controls). The sensitivity values for TA > or = 106, TA > or = 105, and PTC, respectively, were 54% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42%-64%), 71% (95% CI, 60%-81%), and 68% (95% CI, 57%-78%). The specificity values were 75% (95% CI, 58%-88%), 58% (95% CI, 41%-74%), and 75% (95% CI, 58%-88%), respectively. Staphylococcus aureus was the microorganism most frequently isolated in both TA and PTC samples, followed in frequency by Pseudomomonas aeruginosa in TA samples and Haemophilus influenzae in PTC samples. No significant differences were found between the sensitivity of TA > or = 105 and that of PTC, nor between the specificities of TA > or = 106 and PTC. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in the specificities of PTC and TA were found when a TA cutoff of > or = 106 cfu/ml was used. Moreover, at a cutoff of > or = 105 the sensitivity of TA was not statistically different from that of PTC. Quantitative cultures of TA can be considered acceptable for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Valor diagnóstico del cultivo cuantitativo del aspirado endotraqueal en la neumonía adquirida durantela ventilación mecánica. Estudio multicéntrico / Diagnostic value of quantitative cultures of endotracheal aspirate in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter study

OBJETIVO: Estudiar la validez del aspirado traqueal (AT) con cultivos cuantitativos y compararla con el catéter telescopado (CTP) en el diagnóstico de la neumonía relacionada con la ventilación mecánica (NVM). MÉTODO: Estudio prospectivo y multicéntrico en el que se incluyó a pacientes sometidos a ventilación mecánica durante más de 72 h. A los pacientes con sospecha clínica de NVM se les realizaron AT y posteriormente CTP. A todas estas muestras se les practicó un cultivo cuantitativo. De acuerdo con criterios clínicos, radiológicos, de seguimiento y autópsicos se dividieron los pacientes en casos con neumonía y sin neumonía (controles). Se escogió como punto de corte para el CTP 103 unidades formadoras de colonias (ufc)/ml y para el AT se evaluó con 105 y > 106 ufc/ml, respectivamente. RESULTADOS: Se estudió a 120 pacientes; se consideró que 84 presentaban neumonía y 36 no la presentaban (controles). La sensibilidad fue del 54 por ciento (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95 por ciento, 42-64 por ciento), el 71 por ciento (IC del 95 por ciento, 60-81 por ciento) y el 68 por ciento (IC del 95 por ciento, 57-78 por ciento) para AT 106, AT 105 y CTP, respectivamente. Las especificidades encontradas fueron del 75 por ciento (IC del 95 por ciento, 58 - 88 por ciento), el 58 por ciento (IC del 95 por ciento, 41-74 por ciento) y el 75 por ciento (IC del 95 por ciento, 58 -88 por ciento), respectivamente. El organismo aislado más frecuentemente fue Staphylococcus aureus tanto por AT como por CTP, seguido por Pseudomomonas aeruginosa en AT y por Haemophilus influenzae en CTP. No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre la sensibilidad del AT 105 y del CTP, y tampoco con las especificidades del AT 106 y el CTP. CONCLUSIONES: Cuando se utiliza un punto de corte de 106 ufc/ml o mayor para el AT en el diagnostico de la NVM se obtienen porcentajes de especificidad similares a los obtenidos con el CTP, y con el punto de corte 105 o mayor, porcentajes de sensibilidad aceptables. Los cultivos cuantitativos del AT pueden considerarse aceptables en el diagnóstico de la NVM (AU)

Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico de la neumonía asociada a ventilación mecánica / Recommendations for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia

El área de trabajo de Tuberculosis e Infecciones Respiratorias de la Sociedad Española de Patología del Aparato Respiratorio (ATTIR-SEPAR), el Grupo de Estudio de Infección Hospitalaria de la Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (GEIH-SEIMC) y el grupo de Trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (GTEI-SEMICYUC) han elaborado unas recomendaciones para homogeneizar los criterios de sospecha de las neumonías asociadas con ventilación mecánica (NAV), las técnicas utilizadas para la obtención de muestras respiratorias, los procedimientos microbiológicos complementarios y los criterios de diagnóstico definitivo, en el marco de los pacientes ventilados en las unidades de cuidados intensivos multidisciplinarias o de especialidad (quemados, respiratorios, quirúrgicas) de nuestro país. El objetivo de dichas recomendaciones ha sido definir unos criterios mínimos, basados en evidencias científicas y en la opinión de 22 expertos pertenecientes a las 3 sociedades científicas anteriores, de fácil aplicación para la mayoría de médicos que atienden a pacientes críticos con ventilación mecánica en nuestro país (AU)

Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico de la neumonía asociada a ventilación mecánica / Recommendations for diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia

No disponible

Efficacy and tolerability of piperacillin/tazobactam versus ceftazidime in association with amikacin for treating nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients: a prospective randomized multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and bacteriological efficacy as well as tolerability of two regimens of broad-spectrum antibiotics (ceftazidime versus piperacillin/tazobactam) combined with amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients. DESIGN: Open label, prospective, multicenter, and randomized phase III clinical trial. SETTING: Medical or surgical intensive care units (ICUs) of nine acute-care teaching hospitals in Spain. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty-four ICU patients with nosocomial pneumonia and requiring mechanical ventilation were included. They were randomized to receive amikacin (15 mg/day divided into two doses) combined with either piperacillin (4 g every 6 h) and tazobactam (0.5 g every 6 h) (n = 88) or ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) (n = 36). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The causative pathogen was determined in 60.2% of patients in the group of amikacin plus piperacillin/tazobactam and in 76.9% in the group of amikacin plus ceftazidime. A total of 94 bacterial organisms were isolated among which gram-negative bacilli predominated, Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the most frequent. Clinical response at the end of antibiotic therapy was considered satisfactory (cure and/or improvement) in 63.9% of patients in the amikacin plus piperacillin/tazobactam group and in 61.5% in the amikacin plus ceftazidime (odds ratio 1.1; 95% confidence interval 0.44-2.75). Eradication or presumptive eradication rates for each pathogen and for either gram-negative or gram-positive bacteria were similar in both antibiotic combinations (odds ratio 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.39-3.66). A total of 21 adverse effects (23.9%) occurred in the amikacin plus piperacillin and tazobactam group and six (16.7%) in the amikacin plus ceftazidime group, thrombocytosis, renal dysfunction, and hepatic cytolysis being the most common. The efficacy and tolerability of the two therapeutic regimens were similar not only in the whole study population, but also in the subset of P. aeruginosa-related pneumonia (odds ratio 1; 95% confidence interval 0.08-13.37). CONCLUSIONS: Amikacin associated with either ceftazidime or piperacillin and tazobactam has shown comparable efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of ICU patients with nosocomial pneumonia.