BACKGROUND:Low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia are often hospitalized despite guideline recommendations for outpatient treatment. METHODS: Using data from a randomized trial conducted in 32 emergency departments, we performed a propensity-adjusted analysis to compare 30-day mortality rates, time to the return to work and to usual activities, and patient satisfaction with carebetween 944 outpatients and 549 inpatients in pneumonia severity index risk classes I to III who did not have evidence of arterial oxygen desaturation, or medical or psychosocial contraindications to outpatient treatment. RESULTS: After adjusting for quintile of propensity score for outpatient treatment, which eliminated all significant differences for baseline characteristics, outpatients were more likely to return to work (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.6) or, for nonworkers, to usual activities (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8) than were inpatients. Satisfaction with the site-of-treatment decision (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.8), with emergency department care (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.9), and with overall medical care (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.6) was not different between outpatients and inpatients. The overall mortality rate was higher for inpatients than outpatients (2.6% vs 0.1%, respectively; p < 0.01); the mortality rate was not different among the 242 outpatients and 242 inpatients matched by their propensity score (0.4% vs 0.8%, respectively; p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for the propensity of site of treatment, outpatient treatment was associated with a more rapid return to usual activities and to work, and with no increased risk of mortality. The higher observed mortality rate among all low-risk inpatients suggests that physician judgment is an important complement to objective risk stratification in the site-of-treatment decision for patients with pneumonia.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia are often hospitalized despite guideline recommendations for outpatient treatment. METHODS: Using data from a randomized trial conducted in 32 emergency departments, we performed a propensity-adjusted analysis to compare 30-day mortality rates, time to the return to work and to usual activities, and patient satisfaction with care between 944 outpatients and 549 inpatients in pneumonia severity index risk classes I to III who did not have evidence of arterial oxygen desaturation, or medical or psychosocial contraindications to outpatient treatment. RESULTS: After adjusting for quintile of propensity score for outpatient treatment, which eliminated all significant differences for baseline characteristics, outpatients were more likely to return to work (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.6) or, for nonworkers, to usual activities (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8) than were inpatients. Satisfaction with the site-of-treatment decision (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.8), with emergency department care (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.9), and with overall medical care (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.6) was not different between outpatients and inpatients. The overall mortality rate was higher for inpatients than outpatients (2.6% vs 0.1%, respectively; p < 0.01); the mortality rate was not different among the 242 outpatients and 242 inpatients matched by their propensity score (0.4% vs 0.8%, respectively; p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for the propensity of site of treatment, outpatient treatment was associated with a more rapid return to usual activities and to work, and with no increased risk of mortality. The higher observed mortality rate among all low-risk inpatients suggests that physician judgment is an important complement to objective risk stratification in the site-of-treatment decision for patients with pneumonia.
Authors: M L Norgaard; S S Andersen; T K Schramm; F Folke; C H Jørgensen; M L Hansen; C Andersson; D M Bretler; A Vaag; L Køber; C Torp-Pedersen; G H Gislason Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-05-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Yann-Erick Claessens; Thierry Mathevon; Gérald Kierzek; Sophie Grabar; David Jegou; Eric Batard; Clarisse Loyer; Alain Davido; Pierre Hausfater; Hélène Robert; Leila Lavagna-Perez; Bruno Bernot; Patrick Plaisance; Christophe Leroy; Bertrand Renaud Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: P P España; A Capelastegui; A Bilbao; R Diez; F Izquierdo; M J Lopez de Goicoetxea; J Gamazo; F Medel; J Salgado; I Gorostiaga; J M Quintana Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2012-08-05 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Nathan C Dean; Jason P Jones; Dominik Aronsky; Samuel Brown; Caroline G Vines; Barbara E Jones; Todd Allen Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Nathan C Dean; Caroline G Vines; Jenna Rubin; Dave S Collingridge; Mark Mankivsky; Raj Srivastava; Barbara E Jones; Kathryn G Kuttler; Missy Walker; Nathan Jenson; Brandon J Webb; Todd L Allen; Peter J Haug Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Oana L Klein; Larissa Aviles-Santa; Jianwen Cai; Harold R Collard; Alka M Kanaya; Robert C Kaplan; Gregory L Kinney; Eliana Mendes; Lewis Smith; Gregory Talavera; Donghong Wu; Martha Daviglus Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 19.112