J P Wisnivesky1, J Kaplan, C Henschke, T G McGinn, R G Crystal. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 1470 Madison Ave, Box 1087, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory isolation has been recommended for all patients with suspected tuberculosis (TB) to avoid transmission to other patients and health care personnel. In implementing these guidelines, patients with and without TB are frequently isolated, significantly increasing hospital costs. The objective of this study was to derive a clinical rule to predict the need for respiratory isolation of patients with suspected TB. METHODS: To identify potential predictors of the need for isolation, 56 inpatients with sputum cultures positive for TB were retrospectively compared with 56 controls who were isolated on admission to the hospital based on clinically suspected TB but whose sputum cultures tested negative for TB. Variables analyzed included TB risk factors, clinical symptoms, and findings from physical examination and chest radiography. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that the following factors were significantly associated with a culture positive for TB: presence of TB risk factors or symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 7.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.4-24.2]), a positive purified protein derivative tuberculin test result (OR, 13.2 [95% CI, 4.4-40.7]), high temperature (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-8.3]), and upper-lobe disease on chest radiograph (OR, 14.6 [95% CI, 3.7-57.5]). Shortness of breath (OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.12-0.53]) and crackles noted during the physical examination (OR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.15-0.57]) were negative predictors of TB. A scoring system was developed using these variables. A patient's total score of 1 or higher indicated the need for respiratory isolation, accurately predicting a culture positive for TB (98% sensitivity [95% CI, 95%-100%]; 46% specificity [95% CI, 33%-59%]). CONCLUSION: Among inpatients with suspected active pulmonary TB, a prediction rule based on clinical and chest radiographic findings accurately identified patients requiring respiratory isolation.
BACKGROUND: Respiratory isolation has been recommended for all patients with suspected tuberculosis (TB) to avoid transmission to other patients and health care personnel. In implementing these guidelines, patients with and without TB are frequently isolated, significantly increasing hospital costs. The objective of this study was to derive a clinical rule to predict the need for respiratory isolation of patients with suspected TB. METHODS: To identify potential predictors of the need for isolation, 56 inpatients with sputum cultures positive for TB were retrospectively compared with 56 controls who were isolated on admission to the hospital based on clinically suspected TB but whose sputum cultures tested negative for TB. Variables analyzed included TB risk factors, clinical symptoms, and findings from physical examination and chest radiography. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that the following factors were significantly associated with a culture positive for TB: presence of TB risk factors or symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 7.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.4-24.2]), a positive purified protein derivative tuberculin test result (OR, 13.2 [95% CI, 4.4-40.7]), high temperature (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-8.3]), and upper-lobe disease on chest radiograph (OR, 14.6 [95% CI, 3.7-57.5]). Shortness of breath (OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.12-0.53]) and crackles noted during the physical examination (OR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.15-0.57]) were negative predictors of TB. A scoring system was developed using these variables. A patient's total score of 1 or higher indicated the need for respiratory isolation, accurately predicting a culture positive for TB (98% sensitivity [95% CI, 95%-100%]; 46% specificity [95% CI, 33%-59%]). CONCLUSION: Among inpatients with suspected active pulmonary TB, a prediction rule based on clinical and chest radiographic findings accurately identified patients requiring respiratory isolation.
Authors: Fábio S Aguiar; Rodrigo C Torres; João V F Pinto; Afrânio L Kritski; José M Seixas; Fernanda C Q Mello Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Juan P Wisnivesky; Denise Serebrisky; Carlton Moore; Henry S Sacks; Michael C Iannuzzi; Thomas McGinn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: J Lucian Davis; William Worodria; Harriet Kisembo; John Z Metcalfe; Adithya Cattamanchi; Michael Kawooya; Rachel Kyeyune; Saskia den Boon; Krista Powell; Richard Okello; Samuel Yoo; Laurence Huang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alonso Soto; Lely Solari; Javier Díaz; Alberto Mantilla; Francine Matthys; Patrick van der Stuyft Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fernanda Carvalho de Queiroz Mello; Luiz Gustavo do Valle Bastos; Sérgio Luiz Machado Soares; Valéria M C Rezende; Marcus Barreto Conde; Richard E Chaisson; Afrânio Lineu Kritski; Antonio Ruffino-Netto; Guilherme Loureiro Werneck Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Lancelot M Pinto; Keertan Dheda; Grant Theron; Brian Allwood; Gregory Calligaro; Richard van Zyl-Smit; Jonathan Peter; Kevin Schwartzman; Dick Menzies; Eric Bateman; Madhukar Pai; Rodney Dawson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 3.240