Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Infection ; 52(4): 1385-1396, 2024 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38441730

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Blood cultures (BCs) are key for pathogen detection in septic patients. We investigated the extent to which sampling was performed and what factors were associated with the absence of general or inadequate BC sampling. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with sepsis admitted to one of three EDs in 2018. Primary outcome was the extent of general BC collection of at least 1 set. Secondary outcome was the extent of adequate BC sampling, defined as ≥ 2 sets before antibiotic therapy (AT). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with deficits in both outcomes. RESULTS: 1143 patients were analyzed. BCs were collected from 946 patients. Single BCs were taken from 520 patients, ≥ 2 sets from 426 patients. Overall, ≥ 2 BCs were taken from 349 patients before AT. BC sampling before AT occurred significantly more frequently when ≥ 2 BC sets were taken rather than a single one (81.9%, versus 68.4%, p < 0.001) and this also led to the highest pathogen detection rate in our cohort (65.6%). A body temperature of ≥ 38 °C was the a supporting factor for general and adequate BC collection in all three EDs. Retrospective analysis of 533 patients showed that the qSOFA score had no influence on general or adequate BC collection. CONCLUSION: Data on everyday clinical practice in the pre-analytical phase of microbiological diagnostics shows considerable deficits and indicates the need for more implementation of best practice. The variations identified in BC sampling between EDs should be further investigated.


Assuntos
Hemocultura , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Sepse , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Hemocultura/métodos , Sepse/diagnóstico , Sepse/microbiologia , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Adulto , Coleta de Amostras Sanguíneas/métodos , Manejo de Espécimes/métodos
2.
Eur J Intern Med ; 2024 06 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38871565

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In patients complaining common symptoms such as chest/abdominal/back pain or syncope, acute aortic syndromes (AAS) are rare underlying causes. AAS diagnosis requires urgent advanced aortic imaging (AAI), mostly computed tomography angiography. However, patient selection for AAI poses conflicting risks of misdiagnosis and overtesting. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the safety and efficiency of a diagnostic protocol integrating clinical data with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and d-dimer (single/age-adjusted cutoff), to select patients for AAI. METHODS: This prospective study involved 12 Emergency Departments from 5 countries. POCUS findings were integrated with a guideline-compliant clinical score, to define the integrated pre-test probability (iPTP) of AAS. If iPTP was high, urgent AAI was requested. If iPTP was low and d-dimer was negative, AAS was ruled out. Patients were followed for 30 days, to adjudicate outcomes. RESULTS: Within 1979 enrolled patients, 176 (9 %) had an AAS. POCUS led to net reclassification improvement of 20 % (24 %/-4 % for events/non-events, P < 0.001) over clinical score alone. Median time to AAS diagnosis was 60 min if POCUS was positive vs 118 if negative (P = 0.042). Within 941 patients satisfying rule-out criteria, the 30-day incidence of AAS was 0 % (95 % CI, 0-0.41 %); without POCUS, 2 AAS were potentially missed. Protocol rule-out efficiency was 48 % (95 % CI, 46-50 %) and AAI was averted in 41 % of patients. Using age-adjusted d-dimer, rule-out efficiency was 54 % (difference 6 %, 95 % CI, 4-9 %, vs standard cutoff). CONCLUSIONS: The integrated algorithm allowed rapid triage of high-probability patients, while providing safe and efficient rule-out of AAS. Age-adjusted d-dimer maximized efficiency. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04430400.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA