Multicenter Evaluation of a Novel Surveillance Paradigm for Complications of Mechanical Ventilation
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Multicenter Evaluation of a Novel Surveillance Paradigm for Complications of Mechanical Ventilation

Filetype[PDF-181.71 KB]


Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    PLoS One
  • Publisher's site:
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018062
  • Personal Author:
  • Corporate Authors:
    for the CDC Prevention Epicenters Program
  • Description:
    Background

    Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance is time consuming, subjective, inaccurate, and inconsistently predicts outcomes. Shifting surveillance from pneumonia in particular to complications in general might circumvent the VAP definition's subjectivity and inaccuracy, facilitate electronic assessment, make interfacility comparisons more meaningful, and encourage broader prevention strategies. We therefore evaluated a novel surveillance paradigm for ventilator-associated complications (VAC) defined by sustained increases in patients' ventilator settings after a period of stable or decreasing support.

    Methods

    We assessed 600 mechanically ventilated medical and surgical patients from three hospitals. Each hospital contributed 100 randomly selected patients ventilated 2–7 days and 100 patients ventilated >7 days. All patients were independently assessed for VAP and for VAC. We compared incidence-density, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care and hospital lengths of stay, hospital mortality, and time required for surveillance for VAP and for VAC. A subset of patients with VAP and VAC were independently reviewed by a physician to determine possible etiology.

    Results

    Of 597 evaluable patients, 9.3% had VAP (8.8 per 1,000 ventilator days) and 23% had VAC (21.2 per 1,000 ventilator days). Compared to matched controls, both VAP and VAC prolonged days to extubation (5.8, 95% CI 4.2–8.0 and 6.0, 95% CI 5.1–7.1 respectively), days to intensive care discharge (5.7, 95% CI 4.2–7.7 and 5.0, 95% CI 4.1–5.9), and days to hospital discharge (4.7, 95% CI 2.6–7.5 and 3.0, 95% CI 2.1–4.0). VAC was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3–3.2) but VAP was not (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5–2.4). VAC assessment was faster (mean 1.8 versus 39 minutes per patient). Both VAP and VAC events were predominantly attributable to pneumonia, pulmonary edema, ARDS, and atelectasis.

    Conclusions

    Screening ventilator settings for VAC captures a similar set of complications to traditional VAP surveillance but is faster, more objective, and a superior predictor of outcomes.

  • Subject:
  • Source:
    PLoS One. 6(3).
  • Pubmed ID:
    21445364
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC3062570
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    1U01CI000344/CI/NCPDCID CDC HHS/United States
  • Collection(s):
    CDC Public Access
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov