Suppr超能文献

青霉素G是吸入性肺炎的合适初始治疗药物吗?一项使用防污染样本毛刷和定量培养的前瞻性评估。

Is penicillin G an adequate initial treatment for aspiration pneumonia? A prospective evaluation using a protected specimen brush and quantitative cultures.

作者信息

Mier L, Dreyfuss D, Darchy B, Lanore J J, Djedaïni K, Weber P, Brun P, Coste F

机构信息

Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Louis Mourier, Colombes, France.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 1993;19(5):279-84. doi: 10.1007/BF01690548.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the bacteriology of early aspiration pneumonia using a protected specimen brush and quantitative culture techniques, and whether penicillin G is adequate as initial treatment pending culture results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

52 patients (of which 45 required mechanical ventilation) meeting usual clinical criteria for aspiration pneumonia were prospectively included. On admission, patients were given intravenous penicillin G and a protected specimen brush was performed < or = 48 h after.

RESULTS

Cultures of the brush were negative (< 10(3) CFU/ml) in 33 patients (1 had blood cultures positive with S. pneumoniae) and positive (> or = 10(3) CFU/ml) for S. pneumoniae in 2 patients. Seventeen patients had a positive culture (> or = 10(3) CFU/ml) for at least one penicillin G resistant microorganism, with a total of 20 organisms (S. aureus: 6; H. influenzae: 2; Enterobacteriaceae: 8; P. aeruginosa: 3; C. albicans: 1). In 4 of these patients, a penicillin-sensitive pathogen was also recovered in significant concentrations (S. pneumoniae: 2; Streptococcus sp.: 2). These 17 patients with a resistant pathogen did not differ from the 35 other patients with respect to need for ventilatory support and mortality rate. By contrast, they were older (61.1 +/- 21.9 vs. 42.9 +/- 18.8 years; p < 0.005) and required longer mechanical ventilation (6.1 +/- 4.6 vs. 3.5 +/- 2.7 days; p < 0.03) and hospitalization (11.2 +/- 8.8 vs. 6.7 +/- 4.7 days; p < 0.02). Of 17 patients 12 with penicillin G resistant organisms versus 0/35 without, were in-hospital patients and/or had a digestive disorder (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The broad range of offending organisms seen in early aspiration pneumonia precludes use of any single empiric regimen, making protected specimen brush mandatory in many patients. Nevertheless, the involvement of S.pneumoniae in a notable proportion of our patients suggests that routine penicillin prophylaxis after early aspiration (at least in most patients with community-acquired aspiration) is warranted given the potential severity of pneumococcal sepsis in such patients.

摘要

目的

运用保护性标本刷和定量培养技术评估早期吸入性肺炎的细菌学情况,以及在培养结果出来之前青霉素G作为初始治疗是否足够。

患者与方法

前瞻性纳入52例符合吸入性肺炎常规临床标准的患者(其中45例需要机械通气)。入院时,患者接受静脉注射青霉素G,并在≤48小时后进行保护性标本刷检。

结果

33例患者的刷检培养结果为阴性(<10³CFU/ml)(1例血培养肺炎链球菌阳性),2例患者的肺炎链球菌培养结果为阳性(≥10³CFU/ml)。17例患者至少有一种对青霉素G耐药的微生物培养结果为阳性(≥10³CFU/ml),共有20种微生物(金黄色葡萄球菌:6种;流感嗜血杆菌:2种;肠杆菌科细菌:8种;铜绿假单胞菌:3种;白色念珠菌:1种)。在其中4例患者中,还检测到浓度较高的对青霉素敏感的病原体(肺炎链球菌:2种;链球菌属:2种)。这17例有耐药病原体的患者在通气支持需求和死亡率方面与其他35例患者没有差异。相比之下,他们年龄更大(61.1±21.9岁对42.9±18.8岁;p<0.005),需要更长时间的机械通气(6.1±4.6天对3.5±2.7天;p<0.03)和住院时间(11.2±8.8天对6.7±4.7天;p<0.02)。17例有青霉素G耐药微生物的患者中有12例是住院患者和/或患有消化系统疾病,而35例无耐药微生物的患者中为0例(p<0.001)。

结论

早期吸入性肺炎中涉及的病原体种类繁多,排除了使用任何单一经验性治疗方案的可能性,这使得在许多患者中进行保护性标本刷检成为必要。然而,相当比例的患者中存在肺炎链球菌感染,鉴于此类患者中肺炎球菌败血症的潜在严重性,提示早期吸入后常规使用青霉素预防(至少在大多数社区获得性吸入患者中)是有必要的。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验