Initial antimicrobial therapy and case fatality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Luis Alberto Corona Martínez, Iris González Morales, María Caridad Fragoso Marchante
{"title":"Initial antimicrobial therapy and case fatality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia","authors":"Luis Alberto Corona Martínez, Iris González Morales, María Caridad Fragoso Marchante","doi":"10.32457/ijmss.v10i3.2273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The health importance of community-acquired pneumonia is an unquestionable fact given its relationship with hospital and overall mortality. The objective of the investigation was to evaluate the relationship between selected antimicrobials used in the initial treatment (amoxicillin/sulbactam, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone and cefotaxime) and mortality from pneumonia. An observational study was carried out, with a descriptive design and a population of 1,809 patients with pneumonia hospitalized between 2012 and 2019; the necessary information was obtained from the clinical history. Statistical processing was performed using bivariate and multivariate analysis (logistic regression); the ratio of cross products (odds ratio) and its 95% confidence interval were used as a statistician. Among the results, the following stand out: significantly higher lethality values were found in those treated with cefotaxime (33%) than in those who received amoxicillin/sulbactam (24%, OR 1.6[1.0001;2.6]), as well as in those treated with ceftriaxone (30%) compared with those treated with amoxicillin/sulbactam (24%, OR 1.3[1.05;1.8]) and with cefuroxime (24%, OR 1.3[1.04;1.7]). A higher frequency of patients with extensive pneumonia, of patients in a critical state on admission, and of bedridden occurrence during hospitalization were identified in those treated with cefotaxime. In patients with “moderate pneumonia and high probability of unfavorable outcome”, treatment with ceftriaxone or cefotaxime was associated with death; as well as ceftriaxone treatment for all subjects. It is concluded that the initial treatment with amoxicillin/ sulbactam or cefuroxime was more favorable than the use of third generation cephalosporins. Also in the global analysis, the absence of differences in lethality between those treated with amoxicillin/sulbactam and with cefuroxime was recognized.","PeriodicalId":34302,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32457/ijmss.v10i3.2273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The health importance of community-acquired pneumonia is an unquestionable fact given its relationship with hospital and overall mortality. The objective of the investigation was to evaluate the relationship between selected antimicrobials used in the initial treatment (amoxicillin/sulbactam, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone and cefotaxime) and mortality from pneumonia. An observational study was carried out, with a descriptive design and a population of 1,809 patients with pneumonia hospitalized between 2012 and 2019; the necessary information was obtained from the clinical history. Statistical processing was performed using bivariate and multivariate analysis (logistic regression); the ratio of cross products (odds ratio) and its 95% confidence interval were used as a statistician. Among the results, the following stand out: significantly higher lethality values were found in those treated with cefotaxime (33%) than in those who received amoxicillin/sulbactam (24%, OR 1.6[1.0001;2.6]), as well as in those treated with ceftriaxone (30%) compared with those treated with amoxicillin/sulbactam (24%, OR 1.3[1.05;1.8]) and with cefuroxime (24%, OR 1.3[1.04;1.7]). A higher frequency of patients with extensive pneumonia, of patients in a critical state on admission, and of bedridden occurrence during hospitalization were identified in those treated with cefotaxime. In patients with “moderate pneumonia and high probability of unfavorable outcome”, treatment with ceftriaxone or cefotaxime was associated with death; as well as ceftriaxone treatment for all subjects. It is concluded that the initial treatment with amoxicillin/ sulbactam or cefuroxime was more favorable than the use of third generation cephalosporins. Also in the global analysis, the absence of differences in lethality between those treated with amoxicillin/sulbactam and with cefuroxime was recognized.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区获得性肺炎患者的初始抗菌治疗和病死率
鉴于社区获得性肺炎与住院和总死亡率的关系,其对健康的重要性是不容置疑的事实。调查的目的是评估初始治疗中所使用的抗菌药物(阿莫西林/舒巴坦、头孢呋辛、头孢曲松和头孢噻肟)与肺炎死亡率之间的关系。进行了一项观察性研究,采用描述性设计,纳入了2012年至2019年期间住院的1809例肺炎患者;从临床病史中获得必要的信息。采用双变量和多变量分析(逻辑回归)进行统计处理;交叉积比(比值比)及其95%置信区间作为统计量。在这些结果中,以下是值得注意的:头孢噻肟组(33%)的致死率显著高于阿莫西林/舒巴坦组(24%,OR 1.6[1.0001;2.6]),头孢曲松组(30%)的致死率显著高于阿莫西林/舒巴坦组(24%,OR 1.3[1.05;1.8])和头孢呋辛组(24%,OR 1.3[1.04;1.7])。在接受头孢噻肟治疗的患者中,发现广泛性肺炎患者、入院时处于危重状态的患者和住院期间卧床的患者的发生率更高。在“中度肺炎和极有可能出现不良结果”的患者中,使用头孢曲松或头孢噻肟治疗与死亡相关;以及所有受试者的头孢曲松治疗。结论阿莫西林/舒巴坦或头孢呋辛初始治疗比使用第三代头孢菌素更有利。在全球分析中,也认识到用阿莫西林/舒巴坦和用头孢呋辛治疗的人在死亡率方面没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study of Etiology and Clinico-Hematological Profile of Pancytopenia in Children at Tertiary Care Centre in Western India Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Environment for Post-Operative Pain Management A Study of Blood Viscosity and Inflammatory Biomarkers’ Levels in Bilateral Primary Varicose Veins/Reticular Veins as Predictive Markers A Study to Assess the Burden of Hematological Malignancies at a Tertiary Care Center A Study to Assess the Burden of Hematological Malignancies at a Tertiary Care Center
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1