在急诊科开始使用抗生素前一定要做血培养吗?血培养在社区获得性肺炎、蜂窝织炎、尿路感染和肾盂肾炎中的应用综述

Jun Koh Nan, Yu Quek Hui, F. Lateef
{"title":"在急诊科开始使用抗生素前一定要做血培养吗?血培养在社区获得性肺炎、蜂窝织炎、尿路感染和肾盂肾炎中的应用综述","authors":"Jun Koh Nan, Yu Quek Hui, F. Lateef","doi":"10.23937/2474-3674/1510062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Routine blood cultures are commonly taken in patients who present to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspicion of infection. This is also in conjunction with treatment guidelines for severe community-acquired pneumonia, acute meningitis and bacteraemia, etc. The above practice has become a major area of resource utilisation, despite many studies showing poor yield of these cultures. The poor yield of blood cultures is financially costly for patients, and even more so for hospitals. Hidden costs such as wastage of resources, additional working hours for healthcare staff and increased needle stick injuries are a huge burden to hospitals. In addition, contamination (or false-positive blood culture results) has been shown to lead to increased length of stay and total hospital charges. This review questions the efficacy of routine blood cultures taken in the emergency department, in the context of community-acquired pneumonia, cellulitis, urinary tract infection and pyelonephritis. The results of the review showed that blood cultures for community acquired pneumonia, simple and complicated cellulitis as well as simple acute urinary tract infections are not recommended as they do not hold much significant clinical impact on the antibiotic regimen and there is no need for them to be taken prior to the administration of antibiotics. Blood cultures should be taken in patients with severe signs of systemic infection, hospital-acquired pneumonia, complicated cellulitis and pyelonephritis because it is possible for blood cultures to have a bearing on the clinical management. ISSN: 2474-3674 DOI: 10.23937/2474-3674/1510062 • Page 2 of 5 • Jun et al. Int J Crit Care Emerg Med 2019, 5:062 patients with severe illness as there is a higher chance that pathogens not covered by empiric therapy will be found and hence influence antibiotic regimens [1]. A study by Makam, et al. looked at the trend of blood cultures collected in patients with CAP and found a relative increase of 73.4% in 2002 and 2010, whereas cultures obtained for urinary tract infection remained relatively stable [8]. One reason provided for the increase follows from the mandate by JCAHO and The Centres for Medicare and Medicaid guidelines on quality measures that emphasized performing blood cultures before administering antibiotics in the ED [10,11]. This prompted doctors to reflexively order cultures for patients with CAP for whom antibiotics are expected. Makam, et al. concluded that appropriate blood cultures use should be reserved only for the sickest patients when the results could reduce harm, limit hospital stay and lower costs [8]. Other literature suggest that blood cultures rarely altered the management of CAP. Ramanujam, et al. in 2006 revealed positive blood cultures for bacteraemia in 4.5% of the patients with 1.3% warranting a change in antibiotic regimen because of deterioration of clinical status and not due to blood culture results [9]. This is similar to another article in 2007 where a true positive rate of 3.4% was found and for the 0.7% that required a change in antibiotic therapy, none of them had antibiotics coverage broadened due to a resistant organism [10]. These authors recommend eliminating blood cultures for CAP, but still obtaining blood cultures for patients at risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, since the blood cultures taken rarely altered therapy for patients presenting to the ED with pneumonia [9,10]. Another 2005 study by Kennedy, et al. found 7.0% true positives of which 11 patients had antibiotic coverage narrowed and 4 had theirs broadened due to resistance to empirical therapy [13]. Abe, et al. in 2009 showed that 3.7% of the study population had been found positive for bacteraemia, out of whom 2 had their coverage narrowed and 1 had theirs broadened [14]. The blood cultures taken could only identify microbes in a small percentage of people with pneumonia and since few patients altered therapy, it may not be necessary to obtain blood cultures for most patients. Significant healthcare cost was incurred for this practice of taking blood cultures which could possibly have been reduced with proper decision on blood cultures usage. From the above literature, blood cultures appear to be of low value and are not recommended for use with community-acquired pneumonia prior to antibiotics management [8,9,13-15].","PeriodicalId":13937,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is it Always Necessary to Take Blood Cultures before Starting Antibiotics in the Emergency Department? A Review of Usefulness of Blood Cultures in Community-Acquired Pneumonia, Cellulitis, Urinary Tract Infection and Pyelonephritis\",\"authors\":\"Jun Koh Nan, Yu Quek Hui, F. Lateef\",\"doi\":\"10.23937/2474-3674/1510062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Routine blood cultures are commonly taken in patients who present to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspicion of infection. This is also in conjunction with treatment guidelines for severe community-acquired pneumonia, acute meningitis and bacteraemia, etc. The above practice has become a major area of resource utilisation, despite many studies showing poor yield of these cultures. The poor yield of blood cultures is financially costly for patients, and even more so for hospitals. Hidden costs such as wastage of resources, additional working hours for healthcare staff and increased needle stick injuries are a huge burden to hospitals. In addition, contamination (or false-positive blood culture results) has been shown to lead to increased length of stay and total hospital charges. This review questions the efficacy of routine blood cultures taken in the emergency department, in the context of community-acquired pneumonia, cellulitis, urinary tract infection and pyelonephritis. The results of the review showed that blood cultures for community acquired pneumonia, simple and complicated cellulitis as well as simple acute urinary tract infections are not recommended as they do not hold much significant clinical impact on the antibiotic regimen and there is no need for them to be taken prior to the administration of antibiotics. Blood cultures should be taken in patients with severe signs of systemic infection, hospital-acquired pneumonia, complicated cellulitis and pyelonephritis because it is possible for blood cultures to have a bearing on the clinical management. ISSN: 2474-3674 DOI: 10.23937/2474-3674/1510062 • Page 2 of 5 • Jun et al. Int J Crit Care Emerg Med 2019, 5:062 patients with severe illness as there is a higher chance that pathogens not covered by empiric therapy will be found and hence influence antibiotic regimens [1]. A study by Makam, et al. looked at the trend of blood cultures collected in patients with CAP and found a relative increase of 73.4% in 2002 and 2010, whereas cultures obtained for urinary tract infection remained relatively stable [8]. One reason provided for the increase follows from the mandate by JCAHO and The Centres for Medicare and Medicaid guidelines on quality measures that emphasized performing blood cultures before administering antibiotics in the ED [10,11]. This prompted doctors to reflexively order cultures for patients with CAP for whom antibiotics are expected. Makam, et al. concluded that appropriate blood cultures use should be reserved only for the sickest patients when the results could reduce harm, limit hospital stay and lower costs [8]. Other literature suggest that blood cultures rarely altered the management of CAP. Ramanujam, et al. in 2006 revealed positive blood cultures for bacteraemia in 4.5% of the patients with 1.3% warranting a change in antibiotic regimen because of deterioration of clinical status and not due to blood culture results [9]. This is similar to another article in 2007 where a true positive rate of 3.4% was found and for the 0.7% that required a change in antibiotic therapy, none of them had antibiotics coverage broadened due to a resistant organism [10]. These authors recommend eliminating blood cultures for CAP, but still obtaining blood cultures for patients at risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, since the blood cultures taken rarely altered therapy for patients presenting to the ED with pneumonia [9,10]. Another 2005 study by Kennedy, et al. found 7.0% true positives of which 11 patients had antibiotic coverage narrowed and 4 had theirs broadened due to resistance to empirical therapy [13]. Abe, et al. in 2009 showed that 3.7% of the study population had been found positive for bacteraemia, out of whom 2 had their coverage narrowed and 1 had theirs broadened [14]. The blood cultures taken could only identify microbes in a small percentage of people with pneumonia and since few patients altered therapy, it may not be necessary to obtain blood cultures for most patients. Significant healthcare cost was incurred for this practice of taking blood cultures which could possibly have been reduced with proper decision on blood cultures usage. From the above literature, blood cultures appear to be of low value and are not recommended for use with community-acquired pneumonia prior to antibiotics management [8,9,13-15].\",\"PeriodicalId\":13937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23937/2474-3674/1510062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2474-3674/1510062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

常规血培养通常是在病人出现在急诊室(ED)怀疑感染。这也与严重社区获得性肺炎、急性脑膜炎和菌血症等的治疗指南相结合。上述做法已成为资源利用的一个主要领域,尽管许多研究表明这些培养物的产量很低。血液培养的低产量给病人带来了巨大的经济损失,对医院来说更是如此。资源浪费、医护人员的额外工作时间和针刺伤增加等隐性成本是医院的巨大负担。此外,污染(或血液培养结果假阳性)已被证明会导致住院时间延长和医院总费用增加。本综述对急诊科在社区获得性肺炎、蜂窝织炎、尿路感染和肾盂肾炎的情况下进行常规血培养的疗效提出了质疑。本综述的结果表明,不建议进行社区获得性肺炎、单纯性和复杂蜂窝织炎以及单纯性急性尿路感染的血培养,因为它们对抗生素治疗方案没有太大的临床影响,也没有必要在使用抗生素之前进行。有严重全身性感染、医院获得性肺炎、复杂蜂窝织炎和肾盂肾炎症状的患者应进行血培养,因为血培养可能对临床管理有影响。ISSN: 2474-3674 DOI: 10.23937/2474-3674/1510062•Page 2 of 5•Jun et al。重症患者,因为有更高的机会发现经验治疗未涵盖的病原体,从而影响抗生素治疗方案[1]。Makam等研究了CAP患者血液培养的趋势,发现2002年和2010年相对增加了73.4%,而尿路感染的培养保持相对稳定[8]。增加的一个原因是JCAHO和医疗保险和医疗补助中心关于质量措施的指导方针的授权,强调在急诊室使用抗生素之前进行血液培养[10,11]。这促使医生条件反射性地为预期使用抗生素的CAP患者安排培养。Makam等人得出结论,当结果可以减少伤害、限制住院时间和降低费用时,适当的血培养只应留给病情最严重的患者使用[8]。其他文献表明,血培养很少改变CAP的管理。Ramanujam等人在2006年发现,4.5%的患者血培养为菌血症阳性,1.3%的患者需要改变抗生素治疗方案,因为临床状况恶化,而不是因为血培养结果[9]。这与2007年的另一篇文章相似,该文章发现真阳性率为3.4%,对于0.7%需要改变抗生素治疗的病例,没有一例因耐药菌而扩大抗生素覆盖范围[10]。这些作者建议取消CAP的血培养,但对于有医院获得性肺炎风险的患者仍需进行血培养,因为血培养很少会改变就诊于急诊科的肺炎患者的治疗方法[9,10]。Kennedy等人2005年的另一项研究发现,其中11例患者因对经验性治疗产生耐药性而缩小了抗生素覆盖范围,4例患者的抗生素覆盖范围扩大了[13]。Abe等人2009年的研究表明,3.7%的研究人群发现菌血症阳性,其中2人的覆盖范围缩小,1人的覆盖范围扩大[14]。血液培养只能识别一小部分肺炎患者体内的微生物,由于很少有患者改变治疗方法,因此大多数患者可能没有必要进行血液培养。这种血液培养的做法产生了巨大的医疗成本,如果对血液培养的使用作出适当的决定,可能会减少这种成本。从上述文献来看,血培养似乎价值不高,不建议在抗生素治疗前用于社区获得性肺炎[8,9,13-15]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is it Always Necessary to Take Blood Cultures before Starting Antibiotics in the Emergency Department? A Review of Usefulness of Blood Cultures in Community-Acquired Pneumonia, Cellulitis, Urinary Tract Infection and Pyelonephritis
Routine blood cultures are commonly taken in patients who present to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspicion of infection. This is also in conjunction with treatment guidelines for severe community-acquired pneumonia, acute meningitis and bacteraemia, etc. The above practice has become a major area of resource utilisation, despite many studies showing poor yield of these cultures. The poor yield of blood cultures is financially costly for patients, and even more so for hospitals. Hidden costs such as wastage of resources, additional working hours for healthcare staff and increased needle stick injuries are a huge burden to hospitals. In addition, contamination (or false-positive blood culture results) has been shown to lead to increased length of stay and total hospital charges. This review questions the efficacy of routine blood cultures taken in the emergency department, in the context of community-acquired pneumonia, cellulitis, urinary tract infection and pyelonephritis. The results of the review showed that blood cultures for community acquired pneumonia, simple and complicated cellulitis as well as simple acute urinary tract infections are not recommended as they do not hold much significant clinical impact on the antibiotic regimen and there is no need for them to be taken prior to the administration of antibiotics. Blood cultures should be taken in patients with severe signs of systemic infection, hospital-acquired pneumonia, complicated cellulitis and pyelonephritis because it is possible for blood cultures to have a bearing on the clinical management. ISSN: 2474-3674 DOI: 10.23937/2474-3674/1510062 • Page 2 of 5 • Jun et al. Int J Crit Care Emerg Med 2019, 5:062 patients with severe illness as there is a higher chance that pathogens not covered by empiric therapy will be found and hence influence antibiotic regimens [1]. A study by Makam, et al. looked at the trend of blood cultures collected in patients with CAP and found a relative increase of 73.4% in 2002 and 2010, whereas cultures obtained for urinary tract infection remained relatively stable [8]. One reason provided for the increase follows from the mandate by JCAHO and The Centres for Medicare and Medicaid guidelines on quality measures that emphasized performing blood cultures before administering antibiotics in the ED [10,11]. This prompted doctors to reflexively order cultures for patients with CAP for whom antibiotics are expected. Makam, et al. concluded that appropriate blood cultures use should be reserved only for the sickest patients when the results could reduce harm, limit hospital stay and lower costs [8]. Other literature suggest that blood cultures rarely altered the management of CAP. Ramanujam, et al. in 2006 revealed positive blood cultures for bacteraemia in 4.5% of the patients with 1.3% warranting a change in antibiotic regimen because of deterioration of clinical status and not due to blood culture results [9]. This is similar to another article in 2007 where a true positive rate of 3.4% was found and for the 0.7% that required a change in antibiotic therapy, none of them had antibiotics coverage broadened due to a resistant organism [10]. These authors recommend eliminating blood cultures for CAP, but still obtaining blood cultures for patients at risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, since the blood cultures taken rarely altered therapy for patients presenting to the ED with pneumonia [9,10]. Another 2005 study by Kennedy, et al. found 7.0% true positives of which 11 patients had antibiotic coverage narrowed and 4 had theirs broadened due to resistance to empirical therapy [13]. Abe, et al. in 2009 showed that 3.7% of the study population had been found positive for bacteraemia, out of whom 2 had their coverage narrowed and 1 had theirs broadened [14]. The blood cultures taken could only identify microbes in a small percentage of people with pneumonia and since few patients altered therapy, it may not be necessary to obtain blood cultures for most patients. Significant healthcare cost was incurred for this practice of taking blood cultures which could possibly have been reduced with proper decision on blood cultures usage. From the above literature, blood cultures appear to be of low value and are not recommended for use with community-acquired pneumonia prior to antibiotics management [8,9,13-15].
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信