Suppr超能文献

学术教学诊所中急性支气管炎的评估与治疗

Evaluation and treatment of acute bronchitis at an academic teaching clinic.

作者信息

Hall Keri K, Philbrick John, Nadkarni Mohan

机构信息

University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908, USA.

出版信息

Am J Med Sci. 2003 Jan;325(1):7-9. doi: 10.1097/00000441-200301000-00002.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that antibiotics provide no benefit for acute bronchitis, yet 55 to 90% of patients who receive this diagnosis are treated with antibiotics. Given substantial data against antibiotics for acute bronchitis, it could be expected that physicians at academic teaching institutions would be less likely to prescribe antibiotics. However, limited data of antibiotic use for acute bronchitis in this setting has been published.

METHODS

Charts of patients seen between January 1 and October 25, 2000, who received an ICD-9 diagnosis of acute bronchitis or upper respiratory infection (URI) at the University of Virginia internal medicine clinic were reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had no cough, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, symptoms for > or = 3 weeks, or antibiotics for another reason.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients included in this study, 105 (66%) received an antibiotic. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with increasing age (P = 0.002), purulent cough (P = 0.003), abnormal exam (P = 0.003), and comorbidities (P = 0.03) were most likely to receive an antibiotic. Smoking, duration of symptoms, gender, and race did not predict antibiotic use (P > 0.05). Macrolides accounted for 68% of antibiotics. Twenty-two (14%) of all patients received a chest radiograph and 72 (45%) received an inhaler. Of those who had chest radiographs negative for signs of infection, 76% received an antibiotic.

CONCLUSION

In our teaching clinic, antibiotics were overused, whereas chest radiographs and inhalers were underused for the evaluation and treatment of acute bronchitis. Recently published guidelines will help curb use of antibiotics, but a more intensive intervention, including physician and patient education is probably necessary.

摘要

背景

随机对照试验表明,抗生素对急性支气管炎并无益处,但55%至90%被诊断为急性支气管炎的患者接受了抗生素治疗。鉴于有大量数据表明抗生素对急性支气管炎无效,预计学术教学机构的医生开具抗生素的可能性较小。然而,关于这种情况下急性支气管炎抗生素使用的有限数据已发表。

方法

回顾了2000年1月1日至10月25日在弗吉尼亚大学内科诊所就诊且国际疾病分类第九版(ICD - 9)诊断为急性支气管炎或上呼吸道感染(URI)的患者病历。如果患者没有咳嗽、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、症状持续≥3周或因其他原因使用抗生素,则将其排除。

结果

本研究纳入的160例患者中,105例(66%)接受了抗生素治疗。多变量分析显示,年龄增长(P = 0.002)、脓性咳嗽(P = 0.003)、检查异常(P = 0.003)和合并症(P = 0.03)的患者最有可能接受抗生素治疗。吸烟、症状持续时间、性别和种族不能预测抗生素的使用(P > 0.05)。大环内酯类抗生素占抗生素使用的68%。所有患者中有22例(14%)接受了胸部X光检查,72例(45%)接受了吸入器治疗。在胸部X光检查未发现感染迹象的患者中,76%接受了抗生素治疗。

结论

在我们的教学诊所中,抗生素被过度使用,而胸部X光检查和吸入器在急性支气管炎的评估和治疗中使用不足。最近发布的指南将有助于控制抗生素的使用,但可能需要更深入的干预,包括对医生和患者的教育。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验