Evidence Hub

Improvement in process of care and outcome in patients requiring intensive care unit admission for community acquired pneumonia

Georges H, Journaux C, Devos P, Alfandari S, Delannoy PY, Meybeck A, Chiche A, Boussekey N et al.

BMC infectious diseases, 2013

317 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The present study was performed to assess the prognosis of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for community acquired pneumonia (CAP) after implementation of new processes of care.

METHODS: Two groups of patients with CAP were admitted to a 16-bed multidisciplinary ICU in an urban teaching hospital during two different periods: the years 1995-2000, corresponding to the historical group; and 2005-2010, corresponding to the intervention group. New therapeutic procedures were implemented during the period 2005-2010. These procedures included a sepsis management bundle derived from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, use of a third-generation cephalosporin and levofloxacin as the initial empirical antimicrobial regimen, and noninvasive mechanical ventilation following extubation.

RESULTS: A total of 317 patients were studied: 142 (44.8%) during the historical period and 175 (55.2%) during the intervention period. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were higher in patients in the intervention group (7.2 ± 3.7 vs 6.2 ± 2.8; p=0.008). Mortality changed significantly between the two studied periods, decreasing from 43.6% in the historical group to 30.9% in the intervention group (p < 0.02). A restrictive transfusion strategy, use of systematic postextubation noninvasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe chronic respiratory or cardiac failure patients, less frequent use of dobutamine and/or epinephrine in patients with sepsis or septic shock,…

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: 317 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