Do Emergency Department Blood Cultures Change Practice in Patients With Pneumonia?
SEE EDITORIAL, P. 407.Study objective
Although it is considered standard of care to obtain blood cultures on patients hospitalized for pneumonia, several studies have questioned the utility and cost-effectiveness of this practice. The objective of this study is to determine the impact of emergency department (ED) blood cultures on antimicrobial therapy for patients with pneumonia.
Methods
We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study of consecutive adult (age ≥18 years) patients treated at an urban university ED between February 1, 2000 and February 1, 2001. Inclusion criteria were radiographic evidence of pneumonia, clinical evidence of pneumonia, and blood culture obtained. Blood cultures were classified as positive, negative, or contaminant based on previously established criteria. Additionally, data were collected on antimicrobial sensitivities, empiric antibiotic therapy, antibiotic changes, and reasons for changes.
Results
There were 3,926 ED visits with blood cultures obtained for any reason, of which 3,762 (96%) were available for review. Of these, 414 of 3,762 (11%) patients met pneumonia study inclusion criteria, and blood cultures identified 29 of 414 (7.0%) patients with true bacteremia. In the 414 patients, blood culture results altered therapy for 15 patients (3.6%) with suspected pneumonia, of which 11 (2.7%) patients had their coverage narrowed; only 4 (1.0%) patients had their coverage broadened because of resistance to empiric therapy. For the 11 patients with bacteremia whose therapy was not altered, culture results actually supported narrowing therapy in 8 (1.9%) cases, but this was not done.
Conclusion
Blood cultures rarely altered therapy for patients presenting to the ED with pneumonia. More discriminatory blood culture use may potentially reduce resource utilization.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Supervising editor: Gregory J. Moran, MDAuthor contributions: MK, DWB, SBW, REW, and NIS conceived the trial and created the trial design. MK, RR, and NIS were responsible for data collection, MK, DWB, and NIS analyzed the data. SBW assisted with data analysis. MK, DWB, and NIS prepared the manuscript. All authors reviewed and support it. All authors take responsibility for the paper as a whole.Funding and support: Supported in part by a Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Medical Student Grant.Presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians, October 2004, San Francisco, California; and the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine, April 2004, Shrewsbury, MA.Reprints not available from the authors.
PII: S0196-0644(05)00716-X
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.05.025
© 2005 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
