4.5 Article

Resource use by patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia in Europe: analysis of the REACH study

期刊

BMC PULMONARY MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-14-36

关键词

Anti-bacterial agents; Community-acquired pneumonia; Economics; Medical; Retrospective studies

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) places a considerable burden on hospital resources. REACH was a retrospective, observational study (NCT01293435) involving adults >= 18 years old hospitalized with CAP and requiring in-hospital treatment with intravenous antibiotics conducted to collect data on current clinical management patterns and resource use for CAP in hospitals in ten European countries. Methods: Data were collected via electronic Case Report Forms detailing patient and disease characteristics, microbiological diagnosis, treatments before and during hospitalization, clinical outcomes and health resource consumption. Results: Patients with initial antibiotic treatment modification (n = 589; 28.9%) had a longer mean hospital stay than those without (16.1 [SD: 13.1; median 12.0] versus 11.1 [SD: 8.9; median: 9.0] days) and higher ICU admission rate (18.0% versus 11.9%). Septic shock (6.8% versus 3.0%), mechanical ventilation (22.2% versus 9.7%), blood pressure support (fluid resuscitation: 19.4% versus 11.4%), parenteral nutrition (6.5% versus 3.9%) and renal replacement therapy (4.2% versus 1.4%) were all more common in patients with treatment modification than in those without. Hospital stay was longer in patients with comorbidities than in those without (mean 13.3 [SD: 11.1; median: 10.0] versus 10.0 [SD: 7.5; median: 8.0] days). Conclusions: Initial antibiotic treatment modification in patients with CAP is common and is associated with considerable additional resource use. Reassessment of optimal management paradigms for patients hospitalized with CAP may be warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据