Evidence Hub

Targets for Antibiotic and Health Care Resource Stewardship in Inpatient Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Comparison of Management Practices with National Guideline Recommendations

T. Jenkins, S. Stella, Lilia Cervantes, Bryan C. Knepper, A. Sabel, C. Price, Lee Shockley, Michael Hanley et al.

Infection, 2012

209 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

PurposeCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the most common infection leading to hospitalization in the USA. The objective of this study was to evaluate management practices for inpatient CAP in relation to Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS) guidelines to identify opportunities for antibiotic and health care resource stewardship.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of adults hospitalized for CAP at a single institution from 15 April 2008 to 31 May 2009.ResultsOf the 209 patients with CAP who presented to Denver Health Medical Center during the study period and were hospitalized, 166 (79 %) and 43 (21 %) were admitted to a medical ward and the intensive care unit (ICU), respectively. Sixty-one (29 %) patients were candidates for outpatient therapy per IDSA/ATS guidance with a CURB-65 score of 0 or 1 and absence of hypoxemia. Sputum cultures were ordered for 110 specimens; however, an evaluable sample was obtained in only 49 (45 %) cases. Median time from antibiotic initiation to specimen collection was 11 [interquartile range (IQR) 6–19] h, and a potential pathogen was identified in only 18 (16 %) cultures. Blood cultures were routinely obtained for both non-ICU (81 %) and ICU (95 %) cases, but 15 of 36 (42 %) positive cultures were false-positive results. The most common antibiotic regimen was ceftriaxone + azithromycin (182, 87 % cases). Discordant with IDSA/ATS recommendations, oral step-down therapy consisted of a new…

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: 209 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