Impact of blood cultures on the changes of treatment in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Aetiological agents of adult community-acquired pneumonia in Japan: systematic review and meta-analysis of published data

OBJECTIVE

Epidemiological information is essential in providing appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy for pneumonia. This study aimed to clarify the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) by conducting a systematic review of published studies in Japan.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed and Ichushi web database (January 1970 to October 2022).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Clinical studies describing pathogenic micro-organisms in CAP written in English or Japanese, excluding studies on pneumonia other than adult CAP, investigations limited to specific pathogens and case reports.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Patient setting (inpatient vs outpatient), number of patients, concordance with the CAP guidelines, diagnostic criteria and methods for diagnosing pneumonia pathogens as well as the numbers of each isolate. A meta-analysis of various situations was performed to measure the frequency of each aetiological agent.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies were included and 17 095 cases of CAP were identified. Pathogens were undetectable in 44.1% (95% CI 39.7% to 48.5%). Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most common cause of CAP requiring hospitalisation or outpatient care (20.0% (95% CI 17.2% to 22.8%)), followed by Haemophilus influenzae (10.8% (95% CI 7.3% to 14.3%)) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae (7.5% (95% CI 4.6% to 10.4%)). However, when limited to CAP requiring hospitalisation, Staphylococcus aureus was the third most common at 4.9% (95% CI 3.9% to 5.8%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was more frequent in hospitalised cases, while atypical pathogens were less common. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus accounted for 40.7% (95% CI 29.0% to 52.4%) of S. aureus cases. In studies that used PCR testing for pan-respiratory viral pathogens, human enterovirus/human rhinovirus (9.4% (95% CI 0% to 20.5%)) and several other respiratory pathogenic viruses were detected. The epidemiology varied depending on the methodology and situation.

CONCLUSION

The epidemiology of CAP varies depending on the situation, such as in the hospital versus outpatient setting. Viruses are more frequently detected by exhaustive genetic searches, resulting in a significant variation in epidemiology.

[Description and role of bacteriological techniques in the management of lung infections]

Les pneumopathies aiguës recouvrent des contextes cliniques variés et les étiologies bactériennes impliquées le sont tout autant. Aucun outil microbiologique n’est 100 % sensible ni 100 % spécifique et malgré les investigations, plus de 30 % des pneumopathies restent sans étiologie identifiée. Si aucun prélèvement n’est indiqué pour les patients traités en ambulatoire, les prélèvements respiratoires non invasifs sont à privilégier pour les pneumopathies aiguës hospitalisées (communautaires ou associées aux soins), tandis que les prélèvements invasifs sont indiqués en seconde ligne pour les pneumopathies aiguës communautaires en réanimation, et en première ligne pour les pneumopathies aiguës de l’immunodéprimé. La culture microbiologique garde une place importante, à condition que le malade soit prélevé avant instauration de l’antibiothérapie. Certains contextes peuvent justifier le recours aux hémocultures, à la recherche d’antigènes urinaires ou aux sérologies. Les PCR rendent déjà service au quotidien mais l’avenir à court terme appartient probablement aux panels moléculaires multiplex capables de détecter de nombreux micro-organismes en quelques heures, surtout dans les pneumopathies communautaires sévères de réanimation et les pneumopathies aiguës de l’immunodéprimé. Le séquençage nucléotidique haut débit révolutionnera bientôt le diagnostic microbiologique, en pneumologie comme dans les autres domaines de l’infectiologie.

Limited utility of blood cultures in the management of febrile outpatient kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Blood cultures for patients suspected of having bacteremia are standard practice, although several studies demonstrate that blood cultures have limited utility because of a low true-positive rate and infrequent resultant changes in antibiotic treatment. However, most reports exclude immunocompromised patients such as transplant recipients. We assessed the utility of blood cultures in transplant recipients hospitalized for community-acquired infections and evaluated clinical characteristics to predict bacteremia.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 136 febrile cases in 97 kidney transplant recipients admitted to our hospital for whom blood cultures were performed between February 2001 and March 2013.

RESULTS

Among the 136 cases, blood cultures were positive, contaminated, and negative in seven (5.1%) cases, 12 (8.8%) cases, and 117 cases (86.1%), respectively. All bacteria detected in the seven cases were sensitive to the initial empirical antibiotics. Antibiotic treatment was changed based on the blood culture results only in one case for which the coverage was narrowed. The white blood cell count and C-reactive protein level were significantly higher in the patients with bacteremia. The predictive model based on these two factors successfully identified the high-risk group with a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Among the outpatient kidney transplant recipients, positive blood cultures were uncommon and scarcely affected antibiotic therapy, especially in patients with upper respiratory tract or urinary tract infections. Therefore, it may be reasonable to perform blood cultures only for patients with marked leukocytosis and high C-reactive protein level, even among transplant recipients.