Ruiz M, Arosio C, Salman P, Bauer T T, Torres A
Servicio de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Hospital Clinico de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
Drugs. 2000 Dec;60(6):1289-302. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200060060-00004.
Pneumonia can be classified as community-acquired (CAP) or hospital-acquired (nosocomial). Both are frequent infections that demand a great amount of medical resources. The diagnosis of CAP is based on clinical signs and the presence of a pulmonary infiltrate visible on chest radiograph. For practical purposes, CAP has been classified as typical, with an acute onset in which the most representative microorganism is Streptococccus pneumoniae, and atypical, with a subacute onset (Mycoplasma pneumoniae). Nevertheless, so far no studies have clearly demonstrated the utility of this classification in predicting the aetiology. Guidelines on CAP recommend associating the aetiology of CAP with comorbidity, age and severity. The microbiological diagnosis relies mainly on Gram stain and sputum culture, but this technique has disadvantages such as frequent contamination of the sample with oropharyngeal commensal flora, frequent sterile cultures associated with previous antibiotic treatment, and the fact that approximately 40% of patients are not able to expectorate. Other diagnostic techniques such as blood cultures, serological tests and fibreoptic bronchoscopy must be reserved for patients who are hospitalised, especially if they need admission to an intensive care unit. Compared with CAP, nosocomial pneumonia has major diagnostic problems due to the presence of other diseases able to mimic pneumonia and frequent bacterial colonisation of the lower respiratory tract. Most of the diagnostic techniques produce a high percentage of false-negative and false-positive results. This is especially true for ventilator-associated pneumonia. There is controversy over using a comprehensive aetiological work-up based on bronchoscopic techniques or only on quantitative culture of endotracheal aspiration. By contrast, there is consensus about the importance of the adequacy of empirical antibiotic treatment, since mortality rates are higher in patients who are inadequately treated. Once treatment of pneumonia has begun, it must be maintained for 48 to 72 hours because this is the minimum time to evaluate a clinical response. Antibacterial agents have to be adjusted according to microbiological findings. In nonresponding patients, pneumonia-related complications and the presence of multiresistant micro-organisms or non-covered pathogens must be ruled out.
肺炎可分为社区获得性肺炎(CAP)或医院获得性肺炎(医院内肺炎)。这两种都是常见的感染,需要大量医疗资源。CAP的诊断基于临床症状以及胸部X线片上可见的肺部浸润影。出于实际目的,CAP已被分为典型性肺炎,其起病急,最具代表性的微生物是肺炎链球菌;以及非典型性肺炎,其起病亚急性(肺炎支原体)。然而,迄今为止尚无研究明确证明这种分类在预测病因方面的实用性。CAP指南建议将CAP的病因与合并症、年龄和严重程度相关联。微生物学诊断主要依赖革兰氏染色和痰培养,但该技术存在缺点,例如样本经常被口咽共生菌群污染、与先前抗生素治疗相关的频繁无菌培养,以及约40%的患者无法咳痰。其他诊断技术,如血培养、血清学检测和纤维支气管镜检查,必须保留给住院患者,尤其是那些需要入住重症监护病房的患者。与CAP相比,医院内肺炎存在重大诊断问题,因为存在其他能够模拟肺炎的疾病以及下呼吸道频繁的细菌定植。大多数诊断技术会产生较高比例的假阴性和假阳性结果。对于呼吸机相关性肺炎尤其如此。对于基于支气管镜技术或仅基于气管内吸出物定量培养的全面病因学检查的使用存在争议。相比之下,对于经验性抗生素治疗充分性的重要性存在共识,因为治疗不充分的患者死亡率更高。一旦开始肺炎治疗,必须持续48至72小时,因为这是评估临床反应的最短时间。抗菌药物必须根据微生物学检查结果进行调整。对于无反应的患者,必须排除与肺炎相关的并发症以及多重耐药微生物或未覆盖病原体的存在。