{"title":"Ventilator-associated pneumonia: how long is long enough?","authors":"Despoina Koulenti, Maria-Panagiota Almyroudi, Antonios Katsounas","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>To provide an updated overview of optimal antibiotic duration in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), integrating guideline recommendations, clinical evidence, and expert opinion.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>A randomized controlled trial, retrospective studies and meta-analyses support shorter (≤7-8-day) regimens for immunocompetent patients with VAP, reducing toxicity and, potentially, resistance development without compromising outcomes. However, while short-course regimens are increasingly supported, recent trials of newer agents often report durations >7 days, reflecting real-world challenges in resistant pathogens and trial design.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>VAP remains the leading healthcare-associated infection in intensive care units (ICUs), related to worse outcomes and contributing substantially to antimicrobial use. Historically, prolonged antibiotic courses (≥10-14) were standard, particularly for cases involving multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) organisms. This review synthesizes current evidence supporting shorter course therapy for VAP (≤7-8 days), emphasizing the importance of clinical response and individualization. While guideline convergence on 7-8 days has grown, exceptions apply for specific pathogens (e.g., nonfermenters, MDR or XDR organisms), bacteremia, slow response, or structural lung disease. Biomarkers like procalcitonin may assist in select cases but lack VAP-specific validation. Regular reassessment is essential to balance efficacy with stewardship. Evidence gaps remain for immunocompromised patients and ultra-short regimens.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: To provide an updated overview of optimal antibiotic duration in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), integrating guideline recommendations, clinical evidence, and expert opinion.
Recent findings: A randomized controlled trial, retrospective studies and meta-analyses support shorter (≤7-8-day) regimens for immunocompetent patients with VAP, reducing toxicity and, potentially, resistance development without compromising outcomes. However, while short-course regimens are increasingly supported, recent trials of newer agents often report durations >7 days, reflecting real-world challenges in resistant pathogens and trial design.
Summary: VAP remains the leading healthcare-associated infection in intensive care units (ICUs), related to worse outcomes and contributing substantially to antimicrobial use. Historically, prolonged antibiotic courses (≥10-14) were standard, particularly for cases involving multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) organisms. This review synthesizes current evidence supporting shorter course therapy for VAP (≤7-8 days), emphasizing the importance of clinical response and individualization. While guideline convergence on 7-8 days has grown, exceptions apply for specific pathogens (e.g., nonfermenters, MDR or XDR organisms), bacteremia, slow response, or structural lung disease. Biomarkers like procalcitonin may assist in select cases but lack VAP-specific validation. Regular reassessment is essential to balance efficacy with stewardship. Evidence gaps remain for immunocompromised patients and ultra-short regimens.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Critical Care delivers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and most exciting developments in critical care from across the world. Published bimonthly and featuring thirteen key topics – including the respiratory system, neuroscience, trauma and infectious diseases – the journal’s renowned team of guest editors ensure a balanced, expert assessment of the recently published literature in each respective field with insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews.