It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Tracheobronchial colonization by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) has been shown to negatively impact outcomes in cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis. There is uncertainty whether the same association is prevalent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in the outpatient setting. Our objective was to determine (1) whether PA isolation is associated with mortality and (2) changes in exacerbation and hospitalization rates within a longitudinal cohort of COPD outpatients.
Methods
Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization was ascertained in monthly sputum cultures in a prospective cohort of COPD patients from 1994 to 2014. All-cause mortality was compared between patients who were colonized during their follow-up period (PA+) and those who remained free of colonization (PA−); Cox proportional hazards models were used. Exacerbation and hospitalization rates were evaluated by 2-rate χ 2 and segmented regression analysis for 12 months before and 24 months after PA isolation.
Results
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated from sputum in 73 of 181 (40%) patients. Increased mortality was seen with PA isolation: 56 of 73 (77%) PA+ patients died compared with 73 of 108 (68%) PA− patients (P = .004). In adjusted models, PA+ patients had a 47% higher risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–2.11; P = .04). Exacerbation rates were higher for the PA+ group during preisolation (15.4 vs 9.0 per 100 person-months, P < .001) and postisolation periods (15.7 vs 7.5, P < .001). Hospitalization rates were higher during the postisolation period among PA+ patients (6.25 vs 2.44, P < .001).
Conclusions
Tracheobronchial colonization by PA in COPD outpatients was associated with higher morbidity and mortality. This suggests that PA likely contributes to adverse clinical outcomes rather than just a marker of worsening disease.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
2 Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
3 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
4 Department of Medicine, Clinical and Translational Research Center, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA