scholarly journals Risk factors for complicated parapneumonic effusion and empyema on presentation to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia

Thorax ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 592-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
J D Chalmers ◽  
A Singanayagam ◽  
M P Murray ◽  
C Scally ◽  
A Fawzi ◽  
...  
Respirology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junghyun Kim ◽  
Jong Sun Park ◽  
Young-Jae Cho ◽  
Ho Il Yoon ◽  
Jae Ho Lee ◽  
...  

PRILOZI ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanja Petrusevska Marinkovic ◽  
Irena Kondova Topuzovska ◽  
Milena Stevanovic ◽  
Ankica Anastasovska

Abstract Introduction: Parapneumonic effusions, as a complication of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), usually have a good course, but they sometimes progress into complicated parapneumonic effusion (CPPE) and empyema, thus becoming a significant clinical problem. Aim: To review clinical and radiological features, as well as diagnostic and therapeutic options in parapneumonic effusions. Material and methods: The analysis included 94 patients with parapneumonic effusion hospitalized at the University Infectious Diseases Clinic in Skopje during a 4 year period. Out of 755 patients with CAP, 175 (23.18%), had parapneumonic effusion. Thoracentesis was performed in 94 (53.71%) patients, 50 patients were with uncomplicated parapneumonic effusions (UCPPE) and 44 with complicated parapneumonic effusions (CPPE). Results: More patients (59.57%) were male; the average age was 53.82±17.5 years. The most common symptoms included: fever (91; 96.81%), cough (80; 85.11%), pleuritic chest pain (68; 72.34%), dyspnea (65; 69.15%). Alcoholism was the most common comorbidity registered in 12 (12.77%) patients. Macroscopically, effusion was yellow and clear in most cases (36; 38.29%). Localization of pleural effusion was often in the left costophrenic angle (53; 56.38%) and ultrasonographic non-septated complex. Between the two groups of effusions there was a significant difference between the ERS, WBC and CRP in serum and CRP in pleural fluid. Statistical difference existed in terms of days of hospitalization with a longer hospital stay for patients with CPPE (p <0.0001). Conclusion: Patients with parapneumonic effusion have the symptoms of acute respiratory infection and frequent accompanying diseases. Future diagnostic and therapeutic treatment depends on pleural fluid features and imaging lung findings.


Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 829
Author(s):  
Yana Kogan ◽  
Edmond Sabo ◽  
Majed Odeh

Objectives: The role of serum C-reactive protein (CRPs) and pleural fluid CRP (CRPpf) in discriminating uncomplicated parapneumonic effusion (UCPPE) from complicated parapneumonic effusion (CPPE) is yet to be validated since most of the previous studies were on small cohorts and with variable results. The role of CRPs and CRPpf gradient (CRPg) and of their ratio (CRPr) in this discrimination has not been previously reported. The study aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of CRPs, CRPpf, CRPr, and CRPg in discriminating UCPPE from CPPE in a relatively large cohort. Methods: The study population included 146 patients with PPE, 86 with UCPPE and 60 with CPPE. Levels of CRPs and CRPpf were measured, and the CRPg and CRPr were calculated. The values are presented as mean ± SD. Results: Mean levels of CRPs, CRPpf, CRPg, and CRPr of the UCPPE group were 145.3 ± 67.6 mg/L, 58.5 ± 38.5 mg/L, 86.8 ± 37.3 mg/L, and 0.39 ± 0.11, respectively, and for the CPPE group were 302.2 ± 75.6 mg/L, 112 ± 65 mg/L, 188.3 ± 62.3 mg/L, and 0.36 ± 0.19, respectively. Levels of CRPs, CRPpf, and CRPg were significantly higher in the CPPE than in the UCPPE group (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups for levels of CRPr (p = 0.26). The best cut-off value calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for discriminating UCPPE from CPPE was for CRPs, 211.5 mg/L with area under the curve (AUC) = 94% and p < 0.0001, for CRPpf, 90.5 mg/L with AUC = 76.3% and p < 0.0001, and for CRPg, 142 mg/L with AUC = 91% and p < 0.0001. Conclusions: CRPs, CRPpf, and CRPg are strong markers for discrimination between UCPPE and CPPE, while CRPr has no role in this discrimination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document