PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12521560

Subdural Empyema.

Abstract

Subdural empyema represents loculated infection between the outermost layer of the meninges, the dura, and the arachnoid. The empyema may develop intracranially or in the spinal canal. Intracranial subdural empyema is most frequently a complication of sinusitis or, less frequently, otitis or neurosurgical procedures. Spinal subdural empyema is rare and may result from hematogenous infection or spread of infection from osteomyelitis. The most common organisms in intracranial subdural empyema are anaerobic and microaerophilic streptococci, in particular those of the Streptococcus milleri group (S. milleri and Streptococcus anginosus). Staphylococcus aureus is present in a minority of cases, and multiple additional organisms, including Gram-negative organisms, such as Escherichia coli, and anaerobic organisms, such as Bacteroides, may be present. Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus epidermidis may be present in cases related to neurosurgical procedures, and Salmonella species have been detected in patients with advanced AIDS; multiple organisms may be present simultaneously. Spinal subdural empyemas are almost invariably caused by streptococci or by S. aureus. Subdural empyema--whether it occurs in the skull or the spinal canal--may cause rapid compression of the brain or spinal cord, and represents an extreme medical and neurosurgical emergency. The diagnostic procedure of choice for intracranial and spinal subdural empyema is MRI with gadolinium enhancement. Computed tomography scan may miss intracranial subdural empyemas detectable by MRI. Conversely, occasion spinal subdural empyemas may be detected by CT myelography where MRI is negative. Treatment in virtually all cases of intracranial or spinal subdural empyema requires prompt surgical drainage and antibiotic therapy. Pus from the empyema should always be sent for anaerobic, as well as aerobic, culture. Because intracranial subdural empyemas may contain multiple organisms, provisional antibiotic therapy of intracranial subdural empyema, where the organism is unknown, should be directed against S. aureus, microaerophilic and anaerobic streptococci, and Gram-negative organisms. Antibiotics should include 1) nafcillin, oxacillin, or vancomycin; plus 2) a third generation cephalosporin; plus 3) metronidazole. Provisional antibiotic therapy of spinal subdural empyemas should be directed against S. aureus and streptococci, and should include nafcillin, oxacillin, or vancomycin. Morbidity and mortality in intracranial and spinal subdural empyema relate directly to the delay in institution of therapy. Both conditions should, thus, be treated with great urgency.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John E. Greenlee. 2003. Subdural Empyema.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-003-0019-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗