Aspiration Risk Factors, Microbiology, and Empiric Antibiotics for Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • GLIMP investigators - (Author)
  • Department of Internal Medicine I
  • Hospital del Mar
  • University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
  • CIBER - Center for Biomedical Research Network
  • University of Milan
  • Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Universidad Rovira i Virgili
  • University of Barcelona
  • Hospital General Universitario de Valencia
  • University of Sassari
  • Sotiria General Hospital
  • Sant'Andrea Hospital
  • St. Antonius Hospital

Abstract

Background: Aspiration community-acquired pneumonia (ACAP) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with aspiration risk factors (AspRFs) are infections associated with anaerobes, but limited evidence suggests their pathogenic role. Research Question: What are the aspiration risk factors, microbiology patterns, and empiric anti-anaerobic use in patients hospitalized with CAP? Study Design and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of GLIMP, an international, multicenter, point-prevalence study of adults hospitalized with CAP. Patients were stratified into three groups: (1) ACAP, (2) CAP/AspRF+ (CAP with AspRF), and (3) CAP/AspRF- (CAP without AspRF). Data on demographics, comorbidities, microbiological results, and anti-anaerobic antibiotics were analyzed in all groups. Patients were further stratified in severe and nonsevere CAP groups. Results: We enrolled 2,606 patients with CAP, of which 193 (7.4%) had ACAP. Risk factors independently associated with ACAP were male, bedridden, underweight, a nursing home resident, and having a history of stroke, dementia, mental illness, and enteral tube feeding. Among non-ACAP patients, 1,709 (70.8%) had CAP/AspRF+ and 704 (29.2%) had CAP/AspRF-. Microbiology patterns including anaerobes were similar between CAP/AspRF-, CAP/AspRF+ and ACAP (0.0% vs 1.03% vs 1.64%). Patients with severe ACAP had higher rates of total gram-negative bacteria (64.3% vs 44.3% vs 33.3%, P =.021) and lower rates of total gram-positive bacteria (7.1% vs 38.1% vs 50.0%, P <.001) when compared with patients with severe CAP/AspRF+ and severe CAP/AspRF-, respectively. Most patients (>50% in all groups) independent of AspRFs or ACAP received specific or broad-spectrum anti-anaerobic coverage antibiotics. Interpretation: Hospitalized patients with ACAP or CAP/AspRF+ had similar anaerobic flora compared with patients without aspiration risk factors. Gram-negative bacteria were more prevalent in patients with severe ACAP. Despite having similar microbiological flora between groups, a large proportion of CAP patients received anti-anaerobic antibiotic coverage.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)58-72
Number of pages15
JournalChest
Volume159
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2021
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMed 32687909
ORCID /0000-0001-6022-6827/work/168720332

Keywords

Sustainable Development Goals

Keywords

  • anaerobic, aspiration, bacteria, pneumonia, risk factors