• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.68 no.3
• /
• pp.162-167
• /
• 2010

Background: To date, there are few data on the risk factors for severe cases and deaths associated with the 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A. Here, we describe the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of patients hospitalized for pneumonia and identify those factors associated with the development of major complications (MC). Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 41 cases of pneumonia admitted to a university-affiliated tertiary hospital between Aug 26 and Dec 10, 2009, and who had confirmed H1N1 influenza A based on real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay. There were 7,962 patients that fit these criteria. We compared the clinical features and demographic characteristics of patients who developed MC to with those who did not develop MC. Results: During the study period, 10 patients developed MC (required admission to the intensive care unit, n=10; required ventilator therapy, n=6; death, n=4). Patients with MC were significantly older than those without MC and more frequently had underlying medical conditions (90.0% vs 41.9%, p-value <0.01). In the patients with developed MC, the median $PaO_2/FiO_2$ ratio of 230.0 (145.0~347.3) at admission and pneumonia severity index (PSI) score of 141.5 (88.3~158.5) were higher than patients without MC. However, no differences were observed in laboratory findings or in viral shedding between the 2 groups. Conclusion: In hospitalized pneumonia patients of 2009 H1N1 influenza, old age, a history of malignancy, initial hypoxemia, $PaO_2/FiO_2$ ratio, and PSI score appear to be risk factor significantly related to developing MC. These findings might be the basis to influence strategies for admitting patients to an intensive or intermediate care unit and for pre-emptive antiviral therapy.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.114-123
• /
• 2024

Purpose: Appropriate scoring systems can help classify and treat polytrauma patients. This study aimed to validate chest trauma scoring systems in polytrauma patients. Methods: Data from 1,038 polytrauma patients were analyzed. The primary outcomes were one or more complications: pneumonia, chest complications requiring surgery, and mortality. The Thoracic Trauma Severity Score (TTSS), Chest Trauma Score, Rib Fracture Score, and RibScore were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in patients with or without head trauma. Results: In total, 1,038 patients were divided into two groups: those with complications (822 patients, 79.2%) and those with no complications (216 patients, 20.8%). Sex and body mass index did not significantly differ between the groups. However, age was higher in the complications group (64.1±17.5 years vs. 54.9±17.6 years, P<0.001). The proportion of head trauma patients was higher (58.3% vs. 24.6%, P<0.001) and the Glasgow Coma Scale score was worse (median [interquartile range], 12 [6.5-15] vs. 15 [14-15]; P<0.001) in the complications group. The number of rib fractures, the degree of rib fracture displacement, and the severity of pulmonary contusions were also higher in the complications group. In the area under the ROC curve analysis, the TTSS showed the highest predictive value for the entire group (0.731), head trauma group (0.715), and no head trauma group (0.730), while RibScore had the poorest performance (0.643, 0.622, and 0.622, respectively) Conclusions: Early injury severity detection and grading are crucial for patients with blunt chest trauma. The chest trauma scoring systems introduced to date, including the TTSS, are not acceptable for clinical use, especially in polytrauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Therefore, further revisions and analyses of chest trauma scoring systems are recommended.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.75-81
• /
• 2005

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a prevalent and potentially life threatening illness. American Thoracic Society and Infectious Disease Society America recommend combination therapies with ${\beta}-lactam$ plus a macrolide or a fluoroquinolone monotherapy for the empirical treatment of CAP. The aim of this study was to compare moxifloxacin monotherapy with cephalosporin plus azithromycin combination therapies. From January 2004 to March 2005, 18 patients in the moxifloxacin group(MG) and 21 patients in the cefuroxime or ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group(CAG) with CAP were retrospectively reviewed with regard to clinical, laboratory and microbiological data. Each patient was stratified into mild (risk class I-II), moderate (risk class III) and severe (risk class VI, V) group according to and PSI (Pneumonia Severity Index) score. Each group was compared for microbiological eradication, clinical assessment, the length of hospital stay. As results, Total 39 patients with CAP were reviewed. The appropriateness of admission was 83.3% in MC vs. 76.2% in CAC. The mean length of the hospital day was for 8.31 days vs. 7.39 days, days switching parenteral to oral antibiotics in 5.19 days vs. 5.28 days, clinical improvement in 2.43 days vs. 2.61 days in MG vs. CAC. Radiological improvement required 3.75 days vs 3.63 days in MG vs. CAG and bacteriological eradication rate at discharge was the same in the both groups. Mortality rate was 11.1% (2 of 18) vs 14.3% (3 of 21) in MG vs. CAG (p=0.77). Drug cost of the mean 5 hospital days requiring parenteral antibiotics was the most inexpensive in moxifloxacin group for the 147,045 won, and ceftriaxone 1g-azithromycin group for the 170,285 won, cefuroxime bid-azithromycin group for the 207,800 won, ceftriaxone 2g-azithromycin group far the 220,570 won, cefuroxime tid-azithromycin group for the 251,700 won. There was no significant statistical difference in clinical, bacterial, radiological cure and hospital days, and switch to oral days. In conclusion, that i.v. moxifloxacin monotherapy was as effective as azithromycin plus cefuroxime or ceftriaxone combination therapies fur the treatment of CAP. In drug cost analysis, moxifloxacin is less expensive than CAG.