Publique en esta revista
Información de la revista
Vol. 53. Núm. 8.Agosto 2017
Páginas 413-470
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 53. Núm. 8.Agosto 2017
Páginas 413-470
Letter to the Editor
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2017.01.013
New Year, New Challenges for Community Acquired Pneumonia
Nuevo año, nuevos desafíos respecto a la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad
Visitas
570
Pablo Millares Martin
Whitehall Surgery Leeds, UK
Este artículo ha recibido
570
Visitas
Información del artículo
Texto Completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Dear Editor:
Texto Completo

The editorial about recent changes in pneumonia1 addresses treatment as regards early antibiotics and dilemmas regarding steroids. However, there is one early step that needs further attention, and this has not even received a brief mention.

Deciding whether a patient is at high risk and in need of early hospitalization needs further consideration. Several different scales are used to assess risk, such as the PSI, SMARTCOP, CURB-65 and SOAR, but the use of these tools in primary care is considerably hampered by limited access to some parameters (for example urea/blood urea nitrogen, or partial arterial oxygen pressure to FIO2 ratio).

In the case of the PSI, which gives better results in low risk patients,2 step 1 is easy enough to apply, but all patients over age of 50 will need further assessment, and this step alone is not enough. Step 2 can still produce scores up to 185 points (class V needs a score over 130, indicating highest risk), even without including the 110 points from laboratory or radiographic findings.

Community acquired pneumonia is still evaluated differently in primary and secondary care. Therefore, we need to work together to create a tool that can be used in the early stages of the disease, based on more than the patient's history, a clinical examination and bedside tests. This would prevent unnecessary admissions and also provide more input in patients at high risk, thus improving outcomes in these populations.

Clearly, existing guidelines must be updated,1 and better assessment algorithms and tools are needed. There is little point in suggesting, for example, that C-reactive protein (CRP) be measured before considering antibiotics,3 if this test, in the UK, is only available in hospitals, and the time spent awaiting results can delay a critical decision. Risk assessment in patients with community acquired pneumonia is already a challenge in general practice.

References
[1]
I. Alfageme Michavila
¿Qué ha cambiado en la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad en los últimos años?
Arch Bronconeumol, 53 (2017), pp. 3-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2016.06.001
[2]
D. Aujesky,T.E. Auble,D.M. Yealy,R.A. Stone,D.S. Obrosky,T.P. Meehan
Prospective comparison of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia
[3]
NICE
Pneumonia in adults: diagnosis and management (CG191)
(2016)
Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg191/resources/pneumonia-in-adults-diagnosis-and-management-35109868127173 (30.12.16)
Copyright © 2017. SEPAR
Idiomas
Archivos de Bronconeumología

Suscríbase al Newsletter

Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí.

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?