Thoraxzentrum Ruhegebiet, Kliniken für Pneumologie und Infektiologie, Herne und Bochum, Germany.
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;25(2):166-75. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32835023fb.
Healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) was introduced in 2005 by American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines as a new entity of pneumonia, resembling nosocomial pneumonia rather than community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in terms of frequency of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens and outcomes, thus requiring broad spectrum initial antimicrobial coverage in order to prevent inadequate treatment and, as a consequence, excess mortality. This concept continues to be a subject of controversy. Main concerns relate to the definition of HCAP, the true frequency of MDR pathogens, and the impact of MDR pathogens on outcomes.
Definitions of HCAP and the relative frequencies of HCAP defining subgroups were highly variable. All studies demonstrated an increased severity of pneumonia at presentation and an excess mortality from HCAP as compared to CAP. The incidence of MDR pathogens in different observational studies was slightly increased but generally low in most studies originating from Europe, South Korea, Canada, and Japan. However, the data do not support a causal relationship of MDR incidence and excess mortality. Instead, after adjustment for confounders, mortality might be related to hidden or documented treatment restrictions in elderly and severely disabled patients. Accordingly, HCAP guideline concordant antimicrobial treatment did not improve outcomes.
The HCAP concept is based on varying definitions poorly predictive of MDR pathogens. The incidence of MDR pathogens is far lower than supposed in the original guideline document, and MDR pathogens do not seem to be the main cause of excess mortality. Broad antimicrobial coverage does not alter outcomes. As the HCAP concept results in a tremendous overtreatment without any evidence for improved outcomes, it should not be implemented in clinical practice prior to clear evidence that it is superior to a careful assessment of individual risk factors for MDR pathogens.
美国胸科学会/传染病学会 2005 年发布的指南将医疗保健相关性肺炎(HCAP)定义为一种新的肺炎实体,与社区获得性肺炎(CAP)相比,HCAP 更类似于医院获得性肺炎,其多重耐药(MDR)病原体和预后的发生频率更高,因此需要广谱初始抗菌覆盖,以防止治疗不足,进而导致死亡率过高。这一概念一直存在争议。主要关注点涉及 HCAP 的定义、MDR 病原体的真实频率以及 MDR 病原体对预后的影响。
HCAP 的定义和 HCAP 定义亚组的相对频率差异很大。所有研究均表明,与 CAP 相比,HCAP 患者在就诊时肺炎的严重程度更高,死亡率更高。在不同的观察性研究中,MDR 病原体的发生率略有增加,但在大多数来自欧洲、韩国、加拿大和日本的研究中,其发生率通常较低。然而,这些数据并不支持 MDR 发生率与死亡率过高之间存在因果关系。相反,在调整了混杂因素后,死亡率可能与老年和严重残疾患者的隐性或有记录的治疗限制有关。因此,与 HCAP 指南一致的抗菌治疗并未改善预后。
HCAP 概念基于预测 MDR 病原体的定义存在差异且预测效果不佳。MDR 病原体的发生率远低于原始指南文件中假设的水平,并且 MDR 病原体似乎不是导致死亡率过高的主要原因。广泛的抗菌覆盖并不能改变预后。由于 HCAP 概念导致了大量过度治疗,而没有任何证据表明其改善了预后,因此在没有明确证据表明其优于对 MDR 病原体的个体危险因素进行仔细评估之前,不应在临床实践中实施该概念。