Angus Derek C, Marrie Thomas J, Obrosky D Scott, Clermont Gilles, Dremsizov Tony T, Coley Christopher, Fine Michael J, Singer Daniel E, Kapoor Wishwa N
Department of Critical Care Medicine, and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA 15213, USA.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Sep 1;166(5):717-23. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2102084.
Despite careful evaluation of changes in hospital care for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), little is known about intensive care unit (ICU) use in the treatment of this disease. There are criteria that define CAP as "severe," but evaluation of their predictive value is limited. We compared characteristics, course, and outcome of inpatients who did (n = 170) and did not (n = 1,169) receive ICU care in the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team prospective cohort. We also assessed the predictive characteristics of four prediction rules (the original and revised American Thoracic Society criteria, the British Thoracic Society criteria, and the Pneumonia Severity Index [PSI]) for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, medical complications, and death (as proxies for severe CAP). ICU patients were more likely to be admitted from home and had more comorbid conditions. Reasons for ICU admission included respiratory failure (57%), hemodynamic monitoring (32%), and shock (16%). ICU patients incurred longer hospital stays (23.2 vs. 9.1 days, p < 0.001), higher hospital costs (21,144 dollars vs. 5,785 dollars, p < 0.001), more nonpulmonary organ dysfunction, and higher hospital mortality (18.2 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). Although ICU patients were sicker, 27% were of low risk (PSI Risk Classes I-III). Severity-adjusted ICU admission rates varied across institutions, but mechanical ventilation rates did not. The revised American Thoracic Society criteria rule was the best discriminator of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68 and 0.74, respectively) but none of the prediction rules were particularly good. The PSI was the best predictor of medical complications and death (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively), but again, none of the prediction rules were particularly good. In conclusion, ICU use for CAP is common and expensive but admission rates are variable. Clinical prediction rules for severe CAP do not appear adequately robust to guide clinical care at the current time.
尽管对社区获得性肺炎(CAP)的医院治疗变化进行了仔细评估,但对于重症监护病房(ICU)在该疾病治疗中的使用情况却知之甚少。有一些标准将CAP定义为“重症”,但其预测价值的评估有限。我们在肺炎患者预后研究团队的前瞻性队列中比较了接受(n = 170)和未接受(n = 1169)ICU治疗的住院患者的特征、病程和结局。我们还评估了四种预测规则(美国胸科学会原始及修订标准、英国胸科学会标准和肺炎严重程度指数[PSI])对ICU入院、机械通气、医疗并发症和死亡(作为重症CAP的替代指标)的预测特征。ICU患者更有可能从家中入院,且合并症更多。ICU入院的原因包括呼吸衰竭(57%)、血流动力学监测(32%)和休克(16%)。ICU患者住院时间更长(23.2天对9.1天,p < 0.001),住院费用更高(21,144美元对5,785美元,p < 0.001),非肺部器官功能障碍更多,住院死亡率更高(18.2%对5.0%,p < 0.001)。尽管ICU患者病情更重,但27%属于低风险(PSI风险等级I - III)。调整严重程度后的ICU入院率因机构而异,但机械通气率没有差异。修订后的美国胸科学会标准规则是ICU入院和机械通气的最佳鉴别指标(受试者操作特征曲线下面积分别为0.68和0.74),但没有一个预测规则特别出色。PSI是医疗并发症和死亡的最佳预测指标(受试者操作特征曲线下面积分别为0.65和0.75),但同样,没有一个预测规则特别出色。总之,CAP使用ICU很常见且费用高昂,但入院率各不相同。目前,重症CAP的临床预测规则似乎不够稳健,无法指导临床治疗。