Cargando…

A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Suspicion and clinical criteria continue to serve as the foundation for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) diagnosis, however the criteria used to diagnose VAP vary widely. Data from head-to-head comparisons of clinical diagnostic algorithms is lacking, thus a prospective observationa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rahimibashar, Farshid, Miller, Andrew C., Yaghoobi, Mojtaba H., Vahedian-Azimi, Amir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8118372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33985474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01527-1
_version_ 1783691736716935168
author Rahimibashar, Farshid
Miller, Andrew C.
Yaghoobi, Mojtaba H.
Vahedian-Azimi, Amir
author_facet Rahimibashar, Farshid
Miller, Andrew C.
Yaghoobi, Mojtaba H.
Vahedian-Azimi, Amir
author_sort Rahimibashar, Farshid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Suspicion and clinical criteria continue to serve as the foundation for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) diagnosis, however the criteria used to diagnose VAP vary widely. Data from head-to-head comparisons of clinical diagnostic algorithms is lacking, thus a prospective observational study was performed to determine the performance characteristics of the Johanson criteria, Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC/NHSN) criteria as compared to Hospital in Europe Link for Infection Control through Surveillance (HELICS) reference standard. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was performed in three mixed medical-surgical ICUs from one academic medical center from 1 October 2016 to 30 April 2018. VAP diagnostic criteria were applied to each patient including CDC/NHSN, CPIS, HELICS and Johanson criteria. Tracheal aspirate cultures (TAC) and serum procalcitonin values were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled (VAP 45, controls 40). Using HELICS as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity for each of the assessed diagnostic algorithms were: CDC/NHSN (Sensitivity 54.2%; Specificity 100%), CPIS (Sensitivity 68.75%; Specificity 95.23%), Johanson (Sensitivity 67.69%; Specificity 95%). The positive TAC rate was 81.2%. The sensitivity for positive TAC with the serum procalcitonin level > 0.5 ng/ml was 51.8%. CONCLUSION: VAP remains a considerable source of morbidity and mortality in modern intensive care units. The optimal diagnostic method remains unclear. Using HELICS criteria as the reference standard, CPIS had the greatest comparative diagnostic accuracy, whereas the sensitivity of the CDC/NHSN was only marginally better than a positive TAC plus serum procalcitonin > 0.5 ng/ml. Algorithm accuracy was improved by adding serum procalcitonin > 0.5 ng/ml, but not positive quantitative TAC. Trial Registration: Not indicated for this study type.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8118372
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81183722021-05-14 A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study Rahimibashar, Farshid Miller, Andrew C. Yaghoobi, Mojtaba H. Vahedian-Azimi, Amir BMC Pulm Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Suspicion and clinical criteria continue to serve as the foundation for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) diagnosis, however the criteria used to diagnose VAP vary widely. Data from head-to-head comparisons of clinical diagnostic algorithms is lacking, thus a prospective observational study was performed to determine the performance characteristics of the Johanson criteria, Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC/NHSN) criteria as compared to Hospital in Europe Link for Infection Control through Surveillance (HELICS) reference standard. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was performed in three mixed medical-surgical ICUs from one academic medical center from 1 October 2016 to 30 April 2018. VAP diagnostic criteria were applied to each patient including CDC/NHSN, CPIS, HELICS and Johanson criteria. Tracheal aspirate cultures (TAC) and serum procalcitonin values were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled (VAP 45, controls 40). Using HELICS as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity for each of the assessed diagnostic algorithms were: CDC/NHSN (Sensitivity 54.2%; Specificity 100%), CPIS (Sensitivity 68.75%; Specificity 95.23%), Johanson (Sensitivity 67.69%; Specificity 95%). The positive TAC rate was 81.2%. The sensitivity for positive TAC with the serum procalcitonin level > 0.5 ng/ml was 51.8%. CONCLUSION: VAP remains a considerable source of morbidity and mortality in modern intensive care units. The optimal diagnostic method remains unclear. Using HELICS criteria as the reference standard, CPIS had the greatest comparative diagnostic accuracy, whereas the sensitivity of the CDC/NHSN was only marginally better than a positive TAC plus serum procalcitonin > 0.5 ng/ml. Algorithm accuracy was improved by adding serum procalcitonin > 0.5 ng/ml, but not positive quantitative TAC. Trial Registration: Not indicated for this study type. BioMed Central 2021-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8118372/ /pubmed/33985474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01527-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rahimibashar, Farshid
Miller, Andrew C.
Yaghoobi, Mojtaba H.
Vahedian-Azimi, Amir
A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
title A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
title_full A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
title_fullStr A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
title_short A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
title_sort comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8118372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33985474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01527-1
work_keys_str_mv AT rahimibasharfarshid acomparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT millerandrewc acomparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT yaghoobimojtabah acomparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT vahedianazimiamir acomparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT rahimibasharfarshid comparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT millerandrewc comparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT yaghoobimojtabah comparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT vahedianazimiamir comparisonofdiagnosticalgorithmsandclinicalparameterstodiagnoseventilatorassociatedpneumoniaaprospectiveobservationalstudy