Heart failure and community-acquired pneumonia: cases for home hospital?

BACKGROUND: Home hospital is advocated in many western countries in spite of limited evidence of its economic advantage over usual hospital care. Heart failure and community-acquired pneumonia are two medical conditions which are frequently targeted by home hospital programs. While recent trials were devoted to comparisons of safety and costs, the acceptance of home hospital for patients with these conditions remains poorly described. OBJECTIVE: To document the medical eligibility and final transfer decision to home hospital for patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of heart failure or community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of patients admitted to the medical ward of acute care hospitals, up to the final decision concerning their transfer. SETTING: Medical departments of one university hospital and two regional teaching Swiss hospitals. PATIENTS: All patients admitted over a 9 month period to the three settings with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (n= 301) or pneumonia (n=441). MEASUREMENTS: Presence of permanent exclusion criteria on admission; final decision of (in)eligibility based on medical criteria; final decision regarding the transfer, taking into account the opinions of the family physician, the patient and informal caregivers. RESULTS: While 27.9% of heart failure and 37.6% of pneumonia patients were considered to be eligible from a medical point of view, the program acceptance by family physicians, patients and informal caregivers was low and a transfer to home hospital was ultimately chosen for just 3.8% of heart failure and 9.6% of pneumonia patients. There were no major differences between the three settings. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of these two conditions, the potential economic advantage of home hospital over usual inpatient care is compromised by the low proportion of patients ultimately transferred.

Fastidious intracellular bacteria as causal agents of community-acquired pneumonia.

Intracellular bacteria are common causes of community-acquired pneumonia that grow poorly or not at all on standard culture media and do not respond to beta-lactam antibiotic therapy. Apart from well-established agents of pneumonia such as Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Chlamydia psittaci and Coxiella burnetii, some new emerging pathogens have recently been recognized, mainly Parachlamydia acanthamoebae and Simkania negevensis, two Chlamydia-related bacteria. Most of them are causes of benign and self-limited infections. However, they may cause severe pneumonia in some cases (i.e., Legionnaires' disease) and they may cause outbreaks representing a public health problem deserving prompt recognition and appropriate therapy. Although extrapulmonary manifestations are often present, no clinical features allow them to be distinguished from classical bacterial agents of pneumonia such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. Thus, specific molecular diagnostic tools are very helpful for early recognition of the offending bacteria, whereas serology often only allows retrospective or late diagnosis. Macrolides remain the best empirical treatment of intracellular respiratory pathogens, although some observational studies suggest that quinolones may be superior for the treatment of legionellosis.

Alcohol use and frailty in community-dwelling older persons aged 65 to 70 years.

Background: Alcohol use has beneficial as well as adverse consequences on health, but few studies examined its role in the development of age-related frailty. Objectives: To describe the cross-sectional and longitudinal association between alcohol intake and frailty in older persons. Design: The Lausanne cohort 65+ population-based study, launched in 2004. Setting: Community. Participants: One thousand five hundred sixty-four persons aged 65-70 years. Measurements: Annual data collection included demographics, health and functional status, extended by a physical examination every 3 years. Alcohol use (AUDIT-C), and Fried's frailty criteria were measured at baseline and 3-year follow-up. Participants were categorized into robust (0 frailty criterion) and vulnerable (1+ criteria). Results: Few participants (13.0%) reported no alcohol consumption over the past year, 57.8% were light-to-moderate drinkers, while 29.3% drank above recommended thresholds (18.7% "at risk" and 10.5% "heavy" drinkers). At baseline, vulnerability was most frequent in non-drinkers (43.0%), least frequent in light-to-moderate drinkers (26.2%), and amounted to 31.9% in "heavy" drinkers showing a reverse J-curve pattern. In multivariate analysis, compared to light-to-moderate drinkers, non-drinkers had twice higher odds of prevalent (adjOR: 2.24; 95%CI:1.39-3.59; p=.001), as well as 3-year incident vulnerability (adjOR: 2.00; 95%CI:1.02-3.91; p=.043). No significant association was observed among "at risk" and "heavy" drinkers. Conclusion: Non-drinkers had two-times higher odds of prevalent and 3-year incident vulnerability, even after adjusting for their baseline poorer health status. Although residual confounding is still possible, these results likely reflect a healthy survival effect among drinkers while those who experienced health- or alcohol-related problems stopped drinking earlier.