Dataset Information

Do Patients with Cellulitis Need to be Hospitalized? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mortality Rates of Inpatients with Cellulitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cellulitis is a common cause of hospitalization. In the USA, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code "other cellulitis and abscess" accounts for 1.4% of all admissions and $5.5 billion in annual costs. The Infectious Disease Society of America recommends hospitalization for patients with cellulitis under certain circumstances but there is little actual clinical evidence to guide the decision to admit. The purpose of this study is to determine the mortality rate of patients hospitalized with cellulitis and to ascertain if the rate is comparable to the rate for low risk patients with community acquired pneumonia that are currently recommended for outpatient management.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies of consecutive patients hospitalized with cellulitis or erysipelas that reported inpatient mortality. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The mortality rates from the included studies were pooled using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I² statistic.

Results

Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. The overall worldwide mortality rate was 1.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.7-1.8). For studies from the USA, the rate was 0.5% (95% CI 0.3-0.9). The actual cause of death was generally poorly described, and only one third of deaths appeared to be due to infection.

Discussion

The estimated mortality rate for patients currently being hospitalized for cellulitis is comparable to the mortality rate of patients with community-acquired pneumonia that are recommended for outpatient management by the Pneumonia Severity Index and CURB65 prediction models and strongly endorsed by major infectious disease societies. Outpatient management of these patients could result in large cost savings and may be much preferred by patients.

SUBMITTER: Gunderson CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6108983 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies).ConclusionsMortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).