Evidence Hub

Prognostic factors in hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective study of a prospective observational cohort

Akihiro Ito, Tadashi Ishida, Hironobu Tokumasu, Yasuyoshi Washio, Akio Yamazaki, Yuhei Ito, Hiromasa Tachibana

BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 2017

1,834 participants · 103 citations

Abstract

To date, only few studies have examined the prognostic factors of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) defined according to the latest criteria, which excludes healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the factors that affect prognosis, and evaluate the usefulness of existing pneumonia severity scores for predicting the prognosis of CAP. We retrospectively analyzed patients with CAP, excluding HCAP, who were enrolled prospectively between April 2007 and February 2016. Four patients who used macrolides other than azithromycin (AZM) were excluded. We used age, sex, comorbidities, laboratory findings and antimicrobial therapy as prognostic variables. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcome was ICU admission. We also performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) severe criteria, CURB-65 and A-DROP pneumonia severity scores. Among 1834 CAP patients, mean age was 73.5 ± 14.3 years; 1281 (69.8%) were men; and 30-day mortality was 6.7% (122/1834). In total, 1830 patients were analyzed. Multivariate analysis identified age [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.02–1.07], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.13–2.76], malignancy (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.25–4.06), body temperature (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67–0.99), respiratory rate (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07), PaO2/FiO2…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,834 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free