Internet Book of Critical Care (IBCC)

Online Medical Education on Emergency Department (ED) Critical Care, Trauma, and Resuscitation

You are here: Home / IBCC / Community-acquired pneumonia


Community-acquired pneumonia

by

CONTENTS

rapid reference

(back to contents)

main checklist:

MRSA coverage algorithm:

does this patient have pneumonia?

(back to contents)

diagnosing pneumonia can be tricky!
  • Diagnosis is generally based on three lines of evidence:
    • Imaging evidence of a chest infiltrate (e.g., CXR, CT, ultrasound)
    • Inflammation (e.g., fever/hypothermia, rigors, night sweats, leukocytosis, left-shift, procalcitonin)
    • Pulmonary symptoms (e.g., dyspnea, cough, sputum production, pleuritic chest pain) and signs (tachypnea, hypoxemia).
  • Elderly patients may present with non-pulmonary complaints (e.g. falling, delirium, sepsis).
  • When in doubt, it is reasonable to get cultures and start antibiotics for pneumonia.  Within the next 24-48 hours, the diagnosis may be re-considered and antibiotics discontinued as appropriate. 
  • More common pneumonia mimics are listed below.  These can be devilishly hard to find, because you're searching for a needle in a haystack.
avoid pneumonia over-diagnosis
  • Patients often present to the hospital with septic shock plus pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray.  Two possibilities are:
    • 1) Pneumonia
    • 2) Chest infiltrates due to atelectasis/aspiration plus occult focus of sepsis elsewhere (e.g. abdominal sepsis)
  • A common error is to assume that the septic shock must be due to pneumonia, when in fact the chest infiltrates are a red herring.  When in doubt, err on the side of investigating further to exclude an alternative source of sepsis.
CT scan to assist the diagnosis of pneumonia
  • Some patients with pneumonia will have a negative chest X-ray with a positive CT scan (due to subtle infiltrates).  However, among patients who are critically ill due to pneumonia, there really ought to be some abnormality seen on chest X-ray.
  • The main use for CT scan is differentiation from pneumonia mimics.  As shown in the table above, a CT scan is probably the single most versatile test to differentiate pneumonia from a mimic.
  • CT scan can be helpful to detect pneumonia in patients with chronic lung disease and chronically abnormal chest X-ray.
bronchoscopy
  • Occasionally useful to exclude a pneumonia mimic (e.g. diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, eosinophilic pneumonia).

post-diagnosis testing

(back to contents)

tests to obtain after diagnosing pneumonia
  • Blood cultures
    • Recommended for severe pneumonia, although yield is low (~10%).(29968985)
    • If patient already had blood cultures at another hospital, don't repeat them (follow up on results from the outside hospital lab).
  • Sputum for gram stain & culture
    • Intubated patient: tracheal aspirate is very useful.
    • Non-intubated patient: expectorated sputum (low yield, but very helpful when high-quality sputum reveals single type of organism).(29968985)
  • Urine legionella antigen
    • Sensitivity 80% and specificity of ~95%.(29968985)
    • Negative result doesn't exclude legionella, but positive result may allow focusing antibiotic therapy on legionella.
  • Urine pneumococcal antigen
    • Sensitivity 70% and specificity 95% (may have false-positive due to pneumonia within past several weeks).(29968985, 29119848)
  • Nares PCR for MRSA
    • MRSA nares PCR can be reliably used to guide empiric and targeted antibiotic therapy, with a negative predictive value of 96-99%.(32127438, 32101906)
  • Winter:  PCR for influenza & respiratory viruses
    • If nasopharyngeal influenza PCR is negative and high suspicion remains, a lower respiratory tract PCR may be positive.(21048054)
    • Be careful:  patients may be co-infected with viral and bacterial pathogens.  Just because the viral PCR is positive doesn't mean that you should stop antibacterial therapy.(29968985)
  • Procalcitonin 
    • Procalcitonin is not intended to guide the initiation of antibiotics.  However, procalcitonin may support the decision to discontinue antibiotics (functioning as an antibiotic-stopping tool).
    • Procalcitonin <0.5 ng/mL argues against typical bacterial pneumonia.  However, procalcitonin is often not elevated among patients with atypical infections.(32127438)
    • Procalcitonin is unreliable in immunocompromised patients (e.g. neutropenia).
  • Epidemiological history (table below).
  • Review of radiograph for diagnostic clues (table below)
epidemiological history

radiographic patterns
  • Cannot be entirely relied upon.  However, they can provide useful clues, so they shouldn't be ignored either.
  • In general, radiographic patterns should be used primarily to broaden the differential diagnosis (not to narrow it).

ultrasonography for effusion
  • If there is any doubt regarding possible effusion (e.g. basilar opacities), bedside ultrasonography should be performed to clarify this.
  • Ultrasonography should be repeated daily to watch for the development of an effusion or empyema over time.
CT scan & bronchoscopy
  • Main indications for more advanced evaluation:
    • Immunocompromise.
    • Unusual chest imaging (e.g. chest X-ray suggestive of nodular/cavitating pneumonia).
  • CT scan may increase the index of suspicion for unusual pathogens, for example:
    • Diffuse infiltrates with a ground-glass pattern may suggest pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia.
    • Multi-focal dense nodular infiltrates may suggest a fungal pneumonia
  • Bronchoscopy may be needed to exclude unusual organisms.

triage: who needs ICU?

(back to contents)

No criteria apply perfectly for every patient.  However, the IDSA/ATS criteria may provide a useful conceptual framework for borderline situations.  

classic errors in pneumonia triage
  • (1) Triage solely based on the amount of oxygen the patient requires:
    • A common myth is that if the patient can saturate adequately on nasal cannula then it's OK for them to go to the ward.  This is completely and utterly wrong.
  • (2) Triage based on CURB65 and PORT scores:
    • These are validated as mortality prediction tools, they aren't designed to determine disposition.
    • Not great at sorting out who needs the ward vs. ICU.
IDSA/ATS criteria for severe pneumonia 
  • These criteria have been validated for use in ICU triage (with severe pneumonia patients meriting ICU admission).  Severe pneumonia is defined by either having at least one major criteria, or at least three minor criteria.(29609223, 21865188, 19789456)  
  • Major criteria (only 1 required):
    • Respiratory distress requiring mechanical ventilation.  These criteria were created prior to the common use of high-flow nasal cannula.  A patient with substantial work of breathing or tachypnea (e.g., respiratory rate >30) who requires high-flow nasal cannula should be considered for ICU admission.(29119848, 18513176)
    • Septic shock.
  • Minor criteria (at least 3 required):
    • Respiratory rate >29 breaths/min.
    • Hypotension requiring volume resuscitation.
    • PaO2/FiO2 <250 (very roughly may correspond to requiring >3 liters oxygen).(17573487)
    • Temperature <36C.
    • Confusion.
    • Multilobar infiltrates.
    • BUN >20 mg/dL (>7 mM).
    • WBC <4,000/mm3.
    • Platelets <100,000/mm3.

antibiotic selection

(back to contents)

don't forget atypical coverage!
  • Should always be included in the empiric antibiotic regimen for severe pneumonia.
  • Remember:   Legionella causes ~10-15% of severe pneumonia.  This won't be covered by the broadest beta-lactams in the world (e.g. cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem)
  • Azithromycin is an excellent choice here:
    • Solid track record in pneumonia.
    • Retrospective studies suggest mortality benefit, even in pneumococcal pneumonia sensitive to beta-lactams (possibly due to anti-inflammatory activity, or coinfection with atypical pathogens).
    • If the patient is diagnosed with pneumococcus, azithromycin should still be continued for 3-5 days.(17452932, 30118377)
    • Well-tolerated, very safe.  Don't worry about the QT interval, the concept that azithromycin causes torsade de pointes is mythological.(24893087)
  • Doxycycline is also an excellent choice for atypical coverage, with the following advantages:
    • Covers unusual organisms acquired from animal contact (coxiella, tularemia, psittacosis, leptospirosis).
    • Doxycycline is generally active against MRSA in vitro, but it's unclear whether this is effective for clinical MRSA pneumonia.
  • Fluoroquinolones are a poor choice for atypical coverage in the ICU for several reasons.
beta-lactam backbone
  • The beta-lactam backbone will cover gram-positives (especially pneumococcus) and gram negatives.
  • Ceftriaxone is an excellent choice for most patients.
    • It's controversial whether to use 1 or 2 grams IV daily.  Increasing drug resistance over time may be an argument to use 2 grams.  This should also be considered in obese patients.
    • Ceftriaxone is safe to use in most patients with penicillin allergy (more on this here).
  • Pseudomonal beta-lactam (piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime) may be used in patients with risk factors for pseudomonas, for example:
    • Septic shock due to pneumonia.
    • Structural lung disease (e.g. bronchiectasis or advanced COPD with frequent exacerbations).
    • Broad-spectrum antibiotics for >7 days within past month.
    • Hospitalization for >1 day within past three months.
    • Immunocompromise (e.g. chemotherapy, chronic use of >10 mg prednisone daily).
    • Nursing home resident with poor functional status.
  • Patients with penicillin allergy:
    • Non-anaphylactic reaction to penicillin:  may use ceftriaxone or cefepime.
    • Anaphylaxis or angioedema from penicillin:  may use meropenem.
MRSA coverage is occasionally needed as 3rd drug

  • MRSA is an uncommon cause of community-acquired pneumonia, with rates of ~1-3%.(32101906, 32805298)  This varies depending on geography and patient population, but overall most patients with community acquired pneumonia do not need MRSA coverage.
  • Risk factors for MRSA are different from risk factors for drug-resistant gram negative organisms.  Thus, a one-size-fits-all approach towards all drug-resistant organisms is suboptimal.  A tailored strategy to guide the use of MRSA coverage is shown above.(more detail here)
  • Regardless of the exact approach used, the key is ongoing and thoughtful evaluation of data.
    • Staph generates lots of purulent sputum and is generally not difficult to isolate.
    • MRSA PCR has an excellent negative predictive value, so a negative PCR can often allow for discontinuation of MRSA coverage.(32127438, 32101906)
    • MRSA coverage should be stopped within <48-72 hours unless there is some objective data that the patient has MRSA.
  • Choice of agent:
    • Linezolid is arguably first-line therapy for MRSA pneumonia (compared to vancomycin, linezolid has superior lung penetration, causes no nephrotoxicity, and suppresses bacterial toxin synthesis).(26859379, 22247123)
    • Vancomycin is the traditional option if linezolid is contraindicated.  Unfortunately, resistance to vancomycin is increasing over time.  If susceptibility testing shows borderline sensitivity to vancomycin (MIC 1.5-2 mcg/mL) this may increase the risk of treatment failure and an alternative agent might be better.  If the MIC is >2 mcg/mL then a different antibiotic should definitely be used.
    • Ceftaroline is a fifth-generation cephalosporin active against MRSA.  It might be superior to vancomycin (particularly for strains with MIC>1 mcg/mL), but there is no high-quality evidence available.(28702467, 29147471)
    • Daptomycin isn't an option here because it is degraded by surfactant and thus cannot treat pneumonia.
double-coverage for pseudomonas is not needed
  • Unless you're living in a post-apocalyptic hellscape where pseudomonas are insanely resistant to beta-lactams, this shouldn't be necessary.   Double-coverage doesn't even appear to benefit patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (which involves a much greater risk of resistant pseudomonas).  More on this here.
anaerobic coverage is not needed for pneumonia
  • Sometimes there is concern that the patient may have aspirated, so they should be covered for anaerobes.
  • The lung is the best oxygenated organ in the body, so it is not very susceptible to anaerobic infection.   The only way anaerobic infection can occur is if there is an anatomic disruption that creates a poorly oxygenated compartment (abscess or fluid collection).
    • 💡 Anaerobic coverage is indicated only for empyema or lung abscess.

resuscitation

(back to contents)

avoid large-volume fluid resuscitation
  • Large volume fluid resuscitation may worsen hypoxemic respiratory failure and thereby precipitate the need for intubation.
  • Most patients with pneumonia can be stabilized adequately with small-moderate volumes of fluid combined with vasopressors if needed.
    • Consider early institution of vasopressors.  In many cases, a low-dose vasopressor (e.g. norepinephrine 5-10 mcg/min) may substantially reduce the amount of fluid which is needed to stabilize the patient.
  • Fluid should be used only if the following conditions are met:
    • Organ hypoperfusion (e.g. poor urine output) or refractory hypotension PLUS
    • History and evaluation indicates true volume depletion (as opposed to hypotension which is merely due to vasodilation).  Please note that a reduced central venous pressure or collapsed inferior vena cava doesn't necessarily indicate volume depletion, these findings can also be caused by systemic vasodilation.
  • Lactate elevation is not a sign of organ malperfusion, nor is it an indication for fluid.

respiratory support

(back to contents)

high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC)
  • The FLORALI trial suggested improved mortality among patients with severe hypoxemia treated with HFNC.
  • HFNC should be considered in patients with significant work of breathing and/or tachypnea.  The goal of HFNC is to reduce the work of breathing, and thereby prevent patients from tiring out.   In order for this to work, HFNC must be started before the patient is exhausted and in extremis.
  • Advantages of HFNC:
    • Oxygenation support
    • Ventilation support due to dead-space washout
    • Humidification may promote secretion clearance
    • Doesn't interfere with sputum clearance, coughing, or eating
    • Patients may remain on HFNC for several days if needed (often the case for severe lobar pneumonia).
generally avoid BiPAP
  • BiPAP doesn't allow patients to clear their secretions.  Patients treated on BiPAP often do well initially, but eventually may fail due to retained secretions and mucus plugging.
  • BiPAP may be used for limited periods of time to stabilize patients (e.g. for transportation).
  • Occasional patients with COPD plus pneumonia may benefit from a rotating schedule of BiPAP and HFNC.  Pulmonary toilet and secretion clearance may be performed while the patient is on HFNC.
endotracheal intubation
  • Generally used as a second-line therapy after trying HFNC.
  • Indications for intubation in pneumonia are usually:
    • Refractory hypoxemia
    • Progressively worsening work of breathing, respiratory exhaustion

adjuvant therapies

(back to contents)

steroid
  • Several RCTs show that steroid may reduce the length of stay and risk of intubation among pneumonia patients.  The SCCM/ESICM guidelines currently recommend steroid for patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.(29090327)
    • Steroid should be given to patients with severe pneumonia in the absence of contraindications.
  • Patients in whom steroid may be contraindicated:
    • Paralytic infusion (risk of myopathy)
    • Suspicion of pneumonia due to fungus, tuberculosis, or possibly influenza.
    • Immunocompromise (HIV, chemotherapy, neutropenia)
  • There is no specific regimen of steroid.  The following are all reasonable options:
    • Prednisone burst (e.g., 50 mg PO daily for 5 days) or equivalent dose of methylprednisolone (40 mg/day IV) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day).
    • Traditional stress dose steroid (50 mg hydrocortisone IV q6hr) – this may be preferred for patients in shock.

effusion management

(back to contents)

pleural effusion management
  • Pleural effusion and empyema are common in severe pneumonia.
  • Effusion should be evaluated upon admission and every 1-2 days thereafter, using bedside ultrasonography.
management is driven by ultrasonographic features:
  • Effusion is small & anechoic (black, without internal echoes) ==> follow with daily ultrasonography, intervene if the effusion expands.
  • Effusion is large & anechoic ==> drain effusion dry with thoracentesis
  • Effusion contains septations ==> place pigtail catheter, add tPA/DNAse if complete drainage doesn't occur.

treatment failure

(back to contents)

defining treatment failure
  • No clear definition, but clinical improvement should generally be seen within ~3 days.
  • Persistent or rising procalcitonin may be an early sign of treatment failure.
  • Ongoing deterioration in oxygenation and infiltrates >24 hours after antibiotics is the most concerning feature.
  • Radiographic improvement takes weeks, so failure for chest x-ray to improve over a few days means nothing.
    • Indeed, if the chest x-ray clears up within 24-48 hours that might be suggestive of aspiration pneumonitis, rather than true bacterial pneumonia.
differential diagnosis
  • Wrong initial diagnosis (e.g., heart failure, pulmonary embolism, alveolar hemorrhage, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, eosinophilic pneumonia,  – see differential diagnosis figure above).
  • Noninfectious complication of hospitalization (iatrogenic volume overload, pulmonary embolism, drug fever, aspiration).
  • Wrong antibiotic (e.g., multi-drug resistant organism, fungal pneumonia, Q-fever, psittacosis).
  • Inadequate antibiotic dose or penetration into lung tissue.
  • Intra-thoracic complication of infection (abscess, empyema, pleural effusion, ARDS).
  • Metastatic infection (endocarditis, meningitis, arthritis).
  • Weak host.
evaluation
  • Review all data carefully (especially microbiology).
  • CT chest is generally performed to secure the diagnosis of pneumonia and exclude anatomic complication (e.g. abscess or empyema) or pulmonary embolism.
  • Repeat cultures (blood and sputum).
  • Bronchoscopy may be considered.
  • If a significant pleural effusion is present, it may be drained and sampled.
  • Procalcitonin is helpful occasionally to sort out infectious vs. non-infectious illness.
    • Negative procalcitonin (<0.25 ng/ml) after three days suggests the presence of a non-infectious complication, whereas persistently elevated procalcitonin suggests active infection.
    • Among patients with renal insufficiency, C-reactive protein might be used in an analogous fashion (with CRP levels <30 mg/L roughly analogous to a negative procalcitonin).(19762338)

duration of treatment

(back to contents)

Either time or procalcitonin may be used to guide the length of treatment.  When in doubt, both factors may be considered:

time-based strategy:  
  • 5-7 days of treatment is generally adequate
  • Indications for longer treatment:
    • Bacteremic infection with Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas.
    • Legionella pneumonia.
    • Metastatic infection involving other organs (e.g. meningitis).
    • Anatomic complication (e.g. necrotizing pneumonia, lung abscess).
procalcitonin-based strategy:  
  • The following suggest discontinuation of antibiotic:
    • Procalcitonin level <0.25 ng/ml.
    • Procalcitonin has fallen to <20% the peak value.
  • May be useful to support antibiotic discontinuation in a patient who remains clinically ill for non-infectious reasons (e.g. COPD exacerbation, ARDS).
  • Not applicable in following situations:
    • Immunocompromise.
    • Renal dysfunction (PCT may have sluggish kinetics).
    • Patient has other causes of elevated procalcitonin (e.g. other site of infection, burns, trauma, surgery, pancreatitis).

podcast

(back to contents)

Follow us on iTunes

The Podcast Episode

Want to Download the Episode?
Right Click Here and Choose Save-As

questions & discussion

(back to contents)

To keep this page small and fast, questions & discussion about this post can be found on another page here.

  • Failure to cover for atypical (e.g. treating with piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy).
  • Unnecessary MRSA coverage in patients at low risk for MRSA.  In particular, after 2-3 days if there is no evidence that the patient has MRSA (e.g. negative nares PCR & negative sputum), then MRSA coverage should be stopped.
  • Triaging patients based on their oxygen requirement, while ignoring tachypnea and work of breathing.
  • Under-utilization of high-flow nasal cannula, over-utilization of BiPAP.
  • Under-utilization of steroid (especially in patients who may benefit substantially, e.g. underlying asthma/COPD).
  • Missing a pleural effusion which develops insidiously after admission.
  • Egregiously weird antibiotic regimens for patients with dubious penicillin allergy (ceftriaxone is fine here; more on this to come).
  • Using fluoroquinolones (it's a trap).
  • Giving clindamycin for anaerobic coverage.
  • Double-coverage of pseudomonas.
  • Dumping 30 cc/kg fluid into a sick pneumonia patient on the verge of intubation because the lactate is elevated.  Please, please, please, stop this madness, I beg of you.
Going further: 

supplemental media

(back to contents)

references

  • 17452932  Rodríguez A, Mendia A, Sirvent JM, Barcenilla F, de la Torre-Prados MV, Solé-Violán J, Rello J; CAPUCI Study Group. Combination antibiotic therapy improves survival in patients with community-acquired pneumonia and shock. Crit Care Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):1493-8. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000266755.75844.05  [PubMed]
  • 17573487  Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, Hayden DL, Schoenfeld DA, Ware LB; National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Network. Comparison of the SpO2/FIO2 ratio and the PaO2/FIO2 ratio in patients with acute lung injury or ARDS. Chest. 2007 Aug;132(2):410-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-0617  [PubMed]
  • 18513176  Cretikos MA, Bellomo R, Hillman K, Chen J, Finfer S, Flabouris A. Respiratory rate: the neglected vital sign. Med J Aust. 2008 Jun 2;188(11):657-9. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01825.x  [PubMed]
  • 19762338  Menéndez R, Martinez R, Reyes S, Mensa J, Polverino E, Filella X, Esquinas C, Martinez A, Ramirez P, Torres A. Stability in community-acquired pneumonia: one step forward with markers? Thorax. 2009 Nov;64(11):987-92. doi: 10.1136/thx.2009.118612  [PubMed]
  • 19789456  Brown SM, Jones BE, Jephson AR, Dean NC; Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society 2007. Validation of the Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society 2007 guidelines for severe community-acquired pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2009 Dec;37(12):3010-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b030d9  [PubMed]
  • 21048054  Ison MG, Lee N. Influenza 2010-2011: lessons from the 2009 pandemic. Cleve Clin J Med. 2010 Nov;77(11):812-20. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.77a.10135  [PubMed]
  • 21865188  Chalmers JD, Taylor JK, Mandal P, Choudhury G, Singanayagam A, Akram AR, Hill AT. Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoratic Society minor criteria for intensive care unit admission in community-acquired pneumonia patients without major criteria or contraindications to intensive care unit care. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Sep;53(6):503-11. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir463  [PubMed]
  • 22247123  Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Baruch A, McGee WT, Reisman A, Chastre J. Linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar 1;54(5):621-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir895  [PubMed]
  • 24893087  Mortensen EM, Halm EA, Pugh MJ, Copeland LA, Metersky M, Fine MJ, Johnson CS, Alvarez CA, Frei CR, Good C, Restrepo MI, Downs JR, Anzueto A. Association of azithromycin with mortality and cardiovascular events among older patients hospitalized with pneumonia. JAMA. 2014 Jun 4;311(21):2199-208. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.4304  [PubMed]
  • 26859379  Bender MT, Niederman MS. Improving outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016 May;22(3):235-42. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0000000000000257  [PubMed]
  • 27418577  Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al.  Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 1;63(5):e61-e111. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw353  [PubMed]
  • 28702467  Cosimi RA, Beik N, Kubiak DW, Johnson JA. Ceftaroline for Severe Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Systematic Review. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 May 2;4(2):ofx084. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx084  [PubMed]
  • 29090327  Pastores SM, Annane D, Rochwerg B; Corticosteroid Guideline Task Force of SCCM and ESICM. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) in critically ill patients (Part II): Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) 2017. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Apr;44(4):474-477. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4951-5  [PubMed]
  • 29119848  Athlin S, Lidman C, Lundqvist A, Naucler P, Nilsson AC, Spindler C, Strålin K, Hedlund J. Management of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent adults: updated Swedish guidelines 2017. Infect Dis (Lond). 2018 Apr;50(4):247-272. doi: 10.1080/23744235.2017.1399316  [PubMed]
  • 29147471  Karki A, Thurm C, Cervellione K. Experience with ceftaroline for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in a community hospital. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2017 Oct 18;7(5):300-302. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2017.1374107  [PubMed]
  • 29609223  Williams JM, Greenslade JH, Chu KH, et al.  Utility of community-acquired pneumonia severity scores in guiding disposition from the emergency department: Intensive care or short-stay unit? Emerg Med Australas. 2018 Aug;30(4):538-546. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12947  [PubMed]
  • 29968985  Lee MS, Oh JY, Kang CI, Kim ES, Park S, Rhee CK, Jung JY, Jo KW, Heo EY, Park DA, Suh GY, Kiem S. Guideline for Antibiotic Use in Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. Infect Chemother. 2018 Jun;50(2):160-198. doi: 10.3947/ic.2018.50.2.160  [PubMed]
  • 30118377  Garnacho-Montero J, Barrero-García I, Gómez-Prieto MG, Martín-Loeches I. Severe community-acquired pneumonia: current management and future therapeutic alternatives. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018 Sep;16(9):667-677. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2018.1512403  [PubMed]
  • 32101906  Gil R, Webb BJ. Strategies for prediction of drug-resistant pathogens and empiric antibiotic selection in community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2020 May;26(3):249-259. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0000000000000670  [PubMed]
  • 32127438  Modi AR, Kovacs CS. Community-acquired pneumonia: Strategies for triage and treatment. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 Mar;87(3):145-151. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19067  [PubMed]
  • 32805298  Nair GB, Niederman MS. Updates on community acquired pneumonia management in the ICU. Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jan;217:107663. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107663  [PubMed]

The Internet Book of Critical Care is an online textbook written by Josh Farkas (@PulmCrit), an associate professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the University of Vermont.


Who We Are

We are the EMCrit Project, a team of independent medical bloggers and podcasters joined together by our common love of cutting-edge care, iconoclastic ramblings, and FOAM.

Like Us on Facebook

Like Us on Facebook

Subscribe by Email