[The routine use of the Pneumonia Severity Index in the emergency department: effect on process-of-care indicators and results in community acquired pneumonia]

Severity scoring systems for pneumonia: current understanding and next steps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current understanding and clinical applicability of severity scoring systems in pneumonia management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Severity scores in community-acquired pneumonia are strong markers of mortality, but are not necessarily clinical decision-aid tools. The use of severity scores to support outpatient care in low-risk patients has moderate-to-strong evidence available in the literature, mainly for the pneumonia severity index, and must be applied together with clinical judgment. It is not clear that severity scores are helpful to guide empiric antibiotic treatment. The inclusion of biomarkers and performance status might improve the predictive performance of the well known severity scores in community-acquired pneumonia. We should improve our methods for score evaluation and move toward the development of decision-aid tools.

SUMMARY

The application of the available evidence favors the use of severity scoring systems to improve the delivery of care for pneumonia patients. The incorporation of new methodologies and the formulation of different questions other than mortality prediction might help the further development of severity scoring systems, and enhance their support to the clinical decision-making process for the pneumonia-management cascade.

Determining best outcomes from community-acquired pneumonia and how to achieve them

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common acute medical illness with a standard, effective treatment that was introduced before the evidenced-based medicine era. Mortality rates have improved in recent decades but improvements have been minimal when compared to other conditions such as acute coronary syndromes. The standardized approach to treatment makes CAP a target for comparative performance and outcome measures. While easy to collect, simplistic outcomes such as mortality, readmission and length of stay are difficult to interpret as they can be affected by subjective choices and health care resources. Proposed clinical- and patient-reported outcomes are discussed below and include measures such as the time to clinical stability (TTCS) and patient satisfaction, which can be compared between health institutions. Strategies to improve these outcomes include use of a risk stratification tool, local antimicrobial guidelines with antibiotic stewardship and care bundles to include early administration of antibiotics and early mobilization.

Mortality of community-acquired pneumonia in Korea: assessed with the pneumonia severity index and the CURB-65 score

The pneumonia severity index (PSI) and CURB-65 are widely used tools for the prediction of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study was conducted to evaluate validation of severity scoring system including the PSI and CURB-65 scores of Korean CAP patients. In the prospective CAP cohort (participated in by 14 hospitals in Korea from January 2009 to September 2011), 883 patients aged over 18 yr were studied. The 30-day mortalities of all patients were calculated with their PSI index classes and CURB scores. The overall mortality rate was 4.5% (40/883). The mortality rates per CURB-65 score were as follows: score 0, 2.3% (6/260); score 1, 4.0% (12/300); score 2, 6.0% (13/216); score 3, 5.7% (5/88); score 4, 23.5% (4/17); and score 5, 0% (0/2). Mortality rate with PSI risk class were as follows: I, 2.3% (4/174); II, 2.7% (5/182); III, 2.3% (5/213); IV, 4.5% (11/245); and V, 21.7% (15/69). The subgroup mortality rate of Korean CAP patients varies based on the severity scores and CURB-65 is more valid for the lower scores, and PSI, for the higher scores. Thus, these variations must be considered when using PSI and CURB-65 for CAP in Korean patients.