Flanders Scott A, Halm Ethan A
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Treat Respir Med. 2004;3(2):67-77. doi: 10.2165/00151829-200403020-00001.
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common, costly, and clinically serious. Several national and international practice guidelines have been developed to promote more appropriate, cost-effective care for patients with CAP. This article compares and contrasts eight international practice guidelines for the management of CAP, describes the extent to which recommendations are reflected in practice, and proposes explanations for non-adherence to guidelines. We found consistency in recommendations across all the guidelines for the management of patients with CAP requiring intensive care. In this setting, all guidelines recommend chest radiography, sputum Gram stain and culture, blood cultures, testing for Legionella pneumophila, and timely administration of antibiotics active against both typical (i.e. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae) and atypical organisms (i.e. Legionella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). Recommendations for the management of the average inpatient with pneumonia were more variable, with the greatest differences between the North American and European guidelines. The North American guidelines (in contrast to European ones), recommended empiric treatment of typical and atypical organisms in all inpatients. There were also differences in policies regarding the necessity of chest radiography, sputum studies, and serologic testing. Some guidelines explicitly embrace the use of prediction rules to inform the decision to hospitalize, while others do not. Some of these admission decision algorithms focus on identifying low risk patients, while others are most concerned with high risk patients. There was also considerable variation in the specificity and operationalization of clinical criteria for switching from parenteral to oral antibiotics or judging appropriateness for discharge. Many recommendations for key management decisions tended to lack explicit, objective, and actionable criteria that could be easily implemented in real world practice. Review of the pneumonia literature revealed that physician performance of guideline-recommended best practices is often suboptimal. Administration of timely antibiotics (< or =8 hours of presentation) and use of first-line antibiotics occurred in 75-85% and 18-79% of cases, respectively. Collection of blood cultures within 24 hours of presentation and prior to administration of antibiotics was achieved in 69-83% and 63-82% of cases, respectively. Screening the eligibility of CAP patients for hospital-based pneumococcal and influenza vaccination occurred on average in 11 and 14% of hospitalizations, respectively, in the US. Lack of awareness of guidelines, conflicting advice among them, and lack of specific, objective, actionable recommendations most likely contribute to nonadherence to CAP guidelines. Increased attention to these factors will be needed if professional society practice guidelines are to fulfill their promise as tools for improving the quality and outcomes of care for patients with pneumonia.
社区获得性肺炎(CAP)常见、代价高昂且临床症状严重。已经制定了多项国家和国际实践指南,以促进对CAP患者进行更恰当、更具成本效益的治疗。本文比较并对比了八项CAP管理的国际实践指南,描述了这些建议在实践中的体现程度,并对不遵守指南的情况提出了解释。我们发现,所有关于需要重症监护的CAP患者管理的指南在建议方面具有一致性。在这种情况下,所有指南都推荐进行胸部X光检查、痰液革兰氏染色和培养、血培养、嗜肺军团菌检测,以及及时给予对典型(即肺炎链球菌、流感嗜血杆菌)和非典型病原体(即军团菌属、肺炎支原体和肺炎衣原体)均有效的抗生素。对于普通肺炎住院患者的管理建议则更具差异,北美和欧洲指南之间的差异最大。北美指南(与欧洲指南不同)建议对所有住院患者的典型和非典型病原体进行经验性治疗。在胸部X光检查、痰液检查和血清学检测的必要性方面也存在政策差异。一些指南明确支持使用预测规则来指导住院决策,而其他指南则不然。其中一些入院决策算法侧重于识别低风险患者,而其他算法则最关注高风险患者。在从静脉注射抗生素改为口服抗生素或判断出院适宜性的临床标准的特异性和可操作性方面也存在相当大的差异。许多关于关键管理决策的建议往往缺乏明确、客观且可操作的标准,难以在实际临床实践中轻松实施。对肺炎相关文献的回顾显示,医生对指南推荐的最佳实践的执行情况往往不尽人意。及时使用抗生素(就诊后≤8小时)和使用一线抗生素的情况分别出现在75 - 85%和18 - 79%的病例中。在就诊后24小时内且在使用抗生素之前采集血培养的情况分别出现在69 - 83%和63 - 82%的病例中。在美国,分别平均有11%和14%的住院患者接受了CAP患者基于医院的肺炎球菌和流感疫苗接种资格筛查。对指南缺乏认识、指南之间相互冲突的建议以及缺乏具体、客观、可操作的建议很可能是导致不遵守CAP指南的原因。如果专业协会的实践指南要实现其作为改善肺炎患者护理质量和结局的工具的承诺,就需要更多地关注这些因素。