呼吸机相关性肺炎及呼吸机相关事件算法的特征、临床相关性和结局评价

N. Sahni, M. Biswal, K. Kaur, A. Bandyopadhyay, V. Saini, Lakshmi Narayana Yaddanapudi
{"title":"呼吸机相关性肺炎及呼吸机相关事件算法的特征、临床相关性和结局评价","authors":"N. Sahni, M. Biswal, K. Kaur, A. Bandyopadhyay, V. Saini, Lakshmi Narayana Yaddanapudi","doi":"10.4103/jpsic.jpsic_8_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has long been a challenge because of the lack of objective, reliable definitions. Hence, National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) has introduced ventilator-associated events (VAEs) as a surveillance definition. While VAE identifies all the possible complications in a mechanically ventilated patient, VAP recognises only the infective complications. There are several retrospective studies reporting no concordance between the occurrence of VAE and VAP. A prospective, observational study in medical intensive care unit (ICU) was conducted over 1 year with the objective of comparing all three tiers of VAE, which are ventilator-associated condition (VAC), infection-related ventilator-associated complication (iVAC) and possible VAP (PVAP), along with VAP in terms of predictive value, characteristics and clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted from July 2018 to June 2019 at PGIMER, Chandigarh, in a 12-bedded medical ICU. All patients with more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation (MV) were included. The demographic data, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II at 24 h of admission, days of MV, length of ICU stay and outcome of patients were recorded. The patients were screened for both VAP and VAE. Results: Out of a total of 405 patients, 274 patients were included with 3945 patient days and 3330 MV days. The incidence of VAP, VAC, iVAC and PVAP was 6.91, 8.41, 5.41 and 1.50/1000 ventilator days, respectively. Kendall's W-test showed that there was no concordance between VAP and VAE. Conclusion: The study concluded no concordance between cases identified as VAE and VAP.","PeriodicalId":310565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety and Infection Control","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of characteristics, clinical relevance and outcome of ventilator associated pneumonia and ventilator associated events algorithm\",\"authors\":\"N. Sahni, M. Biswal, K. Kaur, A. Bandyopadhyay, V. Saini, Lakshmi Narayana Yaddanapudi\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jpsic.jpsic_8_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has long been a challenge because of the lack of objective, reliable definitions. Hence, National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) has introduced ventilator-associated events (VAEs) as a surveillance definition. While VAE identifies all the possible complications in a mechanically ventilated patient, VAP recognises only the infective complications. There are several retrospective studies reporting no concordance between the occurrence of VAE and VAP. A prospective, observational study in medical intensive care unit (ICU) was conducted over 1 year with the objective of comparing all three tiers of VAE, which are ventilator-associated condition (VAC), infection-related ventilator-associated complication (iVAC) and possible VAP (PVAP), along with VAP in terms of predictive value, characteristics and clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted from July 2018 to June 2019 at PGIMER, Chandigarh, in a 12-bedded medical ICU. All patients with more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation (MV) were included. The demographic data, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II at 24 h of admission, days of MV, length of ICU stay and outcome of patients were recorded. The patients were screened for both VAP and VAE. Results: Out of a total of 405 patients, 274 patients were included with 3945 patient days and 3330 MV days. The incidence of VAP, VAC, iVAC and PVAP was 6.91, 8.41, 5.41 and 1.50/1000 ventilator days, respectively. Kendall's W-test showed that there was no concordance between VAP and VAE. Conclusion: The study concluded no concordance between cases identified as VAE and VAP.\",\"PeriodicalId\":310565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Safety and Infection Control\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Safety and Infection Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpsic.jpsic_8_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety and Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpsic.jpsic_8_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于缺乏客观、可靠的定义,呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的监测长期以来一直是一个挑战。因此,国家医疗安全网络(NHSN)引入了呼吸机相关事件(VAEs)作为监测定义。尽管VAE可以识别机械通气患者所有可能的并发症,但VAP只能识别感染性并发症。有几项回顾性研究报告VAE和VAP的发生没有一致性。在重症监护病房(ICU)进行了一项为期1年的前瞻性观察研究,目的是比较呼吸机相关疾病(VAC)、感染相关呼吸机相关并发症(iVAC)和可能的VAP (PVAP)这三个级别的VAE,以及VAP的预测价值、特征和临床相关性。材料和方法:2018年7月至2019年6月,在昌迪加尔PGIMER的一个12床位的医疗ICU中进行了一项前瞻性队列研究。所有机械通气(MV)超过48小时的患者均纳入研究。记录患者的人口学资料、入院24 h时的急性生理和慢性健康评估- ii、MV天数、ICU住院时间和转归。对患者进行VAP和VAE筛查。结果:在405例患者中,274例患者被纳入,3945患者日和3330 MV日。VAP、VAC、iVAC和PVAP的发生率分别为6.91、8.41、5.41和1.50/1000呼吸机d。Kendall’s w检验显示VAP与VAE之间不存在一致性。结论:本研究未发现VAE与VAP的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of characteristics, clinical relevance and outcome of ventilator associated pneumonia and ventilator associated events algorithm
Background: Surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has long been a challenge because of the lack of objective, reliable definitions. Hence, National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) has introduced ventilator-associated events (VAEs) as a surveillance definition. While VAE identifies all the possible complications in a mechanically ventilated patient, VAP recognises only the infective complications. There are several retrospective studies reporting no concordance between the occurrence of VAE and VAP. A prospective, observational study in medical intensive care unit (ICU) was conducted over 1 year with the objective of comparing all three tiers of VAE, which are ventilator-associated condition (VAC), infection-related ventilator-associated complication (iVAC) and possible VAP (PVAP), along with VAP in terms of predictive value, characteristics and clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted from July 2018 to June 2019 at PGIMER, Chandigarh, in a 12-bedded medical ICU. All patients with more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation (MV) were included. The demographic data, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II at 24 h of admission, days of MV, length of ICU stay and outcome of patients were recorded. The patients were screened for both VAP and VAE. Results: Out of a total of 405 patients, 274 patients were included with 3945 patient days and 3330 MV days. The incidence of VAP, VAC, iVAC and PVAP was 6.91, 8.41, 5.41 and 1.50/1000 ventilator days, respectively. Kendall's W-test showed that there was no concordance between VAP and VAE. Conclusion: The study concluded no concordance between cases identified as VAE and VAP.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信