Suppr超能文献

创伤患者的呼吸机相关性肺炎:你相信革兰氏染色结果吗?

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in injured patients: do you trust your Gram's stain?

作者信息

Davis Kimberly A, Eckert Matthew J, Reed R Lawrence, Esposito Thomas J, Santaniello John M, Poulakidas Stathis, Luchette Fred A

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care and Burns, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 60153, USA.

出版信息

J Trauma. 2005 Mar;58(3):462-6; discussion 466-7. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000153941.39697.aa.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The results of sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid Gram's stain have been used to guide presumptive antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in injured patients, despite reported variability in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy. Our aim was to evaluate the utility of Gram's stain of BAL fluid in the diagnosis of VAP.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all mechanically ventilated trauma patients who developed pneumonia over a 5-year period in whom Gram's stain and final culture data were available.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five records with complete data sets were reviewed. VAP was diagnosed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria and confirmed by BAL and quantitative culture in all patients. Overall accuracy of Gram's stain in diagnosing VAP for any organism was 88% (137 true-positives). When assessed for the ability to predict pneumonia caused by a specific organism, the accuracy decreased significantly, with only 63% of Gram-negative VAPs and 72% of Gram-positive VAPs accurately identified by Gram's stain. However, the absence of Gram-positive organism of Gram's stain excludes Gram-positive VAP in 80% of patients.

CONCLUSION

All trauma patients should be covered presumptively for gram-negative organisms, as they encompass 70% of infections, but are not reliably identified by Gram's stain. As 88% of VAP can be identified by the presence of any organism on Gram's stain, it may be useful in the early diagnosis of VAP but cannot reliably be used to guide presumptive therapy.

摘要

背景

尽管有报道称痰或支气管肺泡灌洗(BAL)液革兰氏染色在敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确性方面存在差异,但该染色结果已被用于指导创伤患者呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的经验性抗生素治疗。我们的目的是评估BAL液革兰氏染色在VAP诊断中的效用。

方法

我们对5年内发生肺炎且有革兰氏染色和最终培养数据的所有机械通气创伤患者进行了回顾性病历审查。

结果

审查了155份有完整数据集的记录。所有患者均根据疾病控制与预防中心标准诊断为VAP,并经BAL和定量培养确诊。革兰氏染色对任何病原体诊断VAP的总体准确率为88%(137例假阳性)。当评估其预测由特定病原体引起的肺炎的能力时,准确率显著下降,革兰氏染色仅能准确识别63%的革兰氏阴性VAP和72%的革兰氏阳性VAP。然而,革兰氏染色未发现革兰氏阳性病原体可在80%的患者中排除革兰氏阳性VAP。

结论

所有创伤患者均应经验性覆盖革兰氏阴性病原体,因为它们占感染的70%,但革兰氏染色不能可靠地识别这些病原体。由于88%的VAP可通过革兰氏染色发现任何病原体来识别,它可能对VAP的早期诊断有用,但不能可靠地用于指导经验性治疗。

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