Autor : Stecher Daniel1
1 Head of the Department of Infectious Diseases Hospital de ClÃnicas José de San MartÃn, Faculty of Medicine. University of Buenos Aires
Community-acquired pneumonia
(CAP) is still an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the adult population1 . One important aspect
for the management
of this disease is the decision-making
process regarding the suggested antibiotic
treatÂment, the choice between outpatient and inpatient treatment (both in general areas and intensive care units) and the assessment of the patient’s prognosis.
Some currently validated tools for the assessÂment
of patients with community-acquired pneuÂmonia (CAP)
are the CURB 65 score (confusion,
urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age ≥ 65 years)2 , which allows for
risk estimation and choice between outpatient and inpatient management, and the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI)3.
Randomized, multicenter studies showed that the PSI is
superior to CURB 65 in terms of deciding
between hospitalization and
outpatient manageÂment without affecting mortality4 . However, the ATS/IDSA (American Thoracic Society/InfecÂtious Diseases Society of America) Guidelines5 emphasize that these indices must
not be used separately when determining whether the patient is
to be hospitalized or not; instead, they
must be supplemented with the assessment
of other clinical and psychosocial aspects, the possibility to receive outpatient drugs, etc. Given the fact that
neither the CURB 65 nor the PSI were
designed to define the hospitalization level of care, the same
guidelines suggest admission to an intensive care unit in cases of hypotension requiring vasopresÂsors or respiratory failure requiring mechanical respiratory assistance; and in cases under different conditions, the recommendation is to apply a series of minor criteria (breathing rate > 30/min, PaO2 / FiO2 [arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen] < 250, multilobar infiltrates, confusion, urea >
20 mg/dL, white blood count < 4000 cells/ mL, platelets
< 1000 000/mL, hypothermia
and hypotension requiring
fluid resuscitation) plus the
clinical criterion regarding the need
to increase treatment intensity.
In
this RAMR issue, Corona
Martínez et al report the
use of an index for the stratification
of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, as
a consequence of an unfavorable experience with the use of another tool, the
PSI. The authors emÂphasize its prognostic value but also indicate
that the tool has been designed
to guide the physician through the decision-making process related to the patient’s management.
We should emphasize it is
a user-friendly tool, since it is
based on clinical and radiological data.
This publication shows the importance of havÂing tools for
evaluating patients with community-acquired pneumonia that allow us to assess
the patient’s risk and simplify the decision-making process, and that can be adjusted to local needs.
REFERENCES
1.
File TM, Marrie TJ. Burden
of community-acquired pneumonia
in North American adults. Prostgrad
Med 2010;122:130-41.
https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2010.03.2130
2.
Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy
DM, et al. A prediction rule to identify
low-risk patients with communityacquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 243-50. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199701233360402
3.
Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax 2003; 58: 377-82.
https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.58.5.377
4.
Aujesky D, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al. Prospective comÂparison of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired
pneumonia. Am J Med 2005;
118: 384-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.006
5.
Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long
AC, et al. Diagnosis and TreatÂment of Adults with Community-acquired
Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American ThoÂracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.
2019;200(7):e45-e67. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST.