406
Views
26
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Definite, probable, and possible bacterial aetiologies of community-acquired pneumonia at different CRB-65 scores

, , &
Pages 426-434 | Received 06 Jul 2009, Accepted 10 Dec 2009, Published online: 09 Feb 2010
 

Abstract

According to the recommendations of the Swedish Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) guidelines, the selection of empirical antibiotic therapy should be based on the CRB-65 rule. The guidelines recommend empirical therapy directed predominantly against Streptococcus pneumoniae for patients with low CRB-65 scores and broad-spectrum therapy for patients with high CRB-65 scores. In order to study the utility of the recommendations, we analyzed the data from an aetiological study previously performed on 235 hospitalized adult CAP patients at our medical centre. A definite, probable, or possible bacterial aetiology was noted in 194 cases (83%), including 112 cases (48%) with S. pneumoniae aetiology. The following frequencies of definite–probable aetiologies were noted in the patients with CRB-65 score 0–1 (n=155) and CRB-65 score 2–4 (n=80): S. pneumoniae 30% and 35%, Haemophilus influenzae 6.5% and 14% (p=0.063), Mycoplasma pneumoniae 15% and 5.0% (p=0.019), Chlamydophila species 2.6% and 1.2%, Legionella pneumophila 1.9% and 0%, and Staphylococcus aureus 1.3% and 1.2%, respectively. The high frequency of S. pneumoniae in the study supports the recommendations to predominantly cover this bacterium in the empirical therapy of patients with low CRB-65 scores. In the case of treatment failure in these patients, the study indicates that coverage against M. pneumoniae and H. influenzae should be considered.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Research Committee of Örebro County Council.

Declaration of interest: All authors have no competing interest.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.