Can we predict septic shock in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia?

doi:10.1186/cc3919

Critical Care

Volume 9
Issue 6

Viewing options:

Abstract
Full text
PDF (32KB)

Associated material:

Related literature:

Articles citing this article
on Google Scholar
on ISI Web of Science
on PubMed Central
Other articles by authors
on Google Scholar

de Lange DW
Bonten MJ

on PubMed

de Lange DW
Bonten MJ
Related articles/pages
on Google

on Google Scholar

on PubMed

Tools:

Post to:

Commentary

Can we predict septic shock in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia?

Dylan W de Lange¹ and Marc JM Bonten²

¹Department of Intensive Care Medicine, and Department of Internal Medicine & Infectious Diseases, Division of General Medicine, Infectious Diseases & Geriatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

²Department of Internal Medicine & Infectious Diseases, Division of General Medicine, Infectious Diseases & Geriatrics, Department of Medical Microbiology, Division of Hospital Hygiene & Infection Prevention, Julius Center for Health Care Epidemiology & Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

author email corresponding author email

Critical Care 2005, 9:640-641doi:10.1186/cc3919


Published:	11 November 2005

See related research article http://ccforum.com/content/9/6/R662

Abstract

Hospital-acquired pneumonia is a serious and potentially life-threatening complication, with reported pneumonia-attributable mortality rates as high as 50%. Rapid diagnosis and immediate institution of adequate empirical antimicrobial treatment are of paramount importance in patient management. Nevertheless, some patients deteriorate and develop respiratory insufficiency, septic shock and a multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Early recognition of these patients might help in reducing morbidity and mortality. Elevated systemic levels of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10) at the time of diagnosis of hospital-acquired pneumonia appear to be indicative of subsequent progression to septic shock. Should this now become a part of patient management?