International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia
TL;DR: The panel selected seven PICO (population–intervention–comparison–outcome) questions that generated a series of recommendations for HAP/VAP diagnosis, treatment and prevention that were adopted by the ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT panel.
Abstract: The most recent European guidelines and task force reports on hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) were published almost 10 years ago. Since then, further randomised clinical trials of HAP and VAP have been conducted and new information has become available. Studies of epidemiology, diagnosis, empiric treatment, response to treatment, new antibiotics or new forms of antibiotic administration and disease prevention have changed old paradigms. In addition, important differences between approaches in Europe and the USA have become apparent. The European Respiratory Society launched a project to develop new international guidelines for HAP and VAP. Other European societies, including the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, were invited to participate and appointed their representatives. The Latin American Thoracic Association was also invited. A total of 15 experts and two methodologists made up the panel. Three experts from the USA were also invited (Michael S. Niederman, Marin Kollef and Richard Wunderink). Applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, the panel selected seven PICO (population–intervention–comparison–outcome) questions that generated a series of recommendations for HAP/VAP diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
Citations
More filters
01 Sep 2008
TL;DR: The Methodology used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators is summarized.
Abstract: Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators
2,961 citations
TL;DR: High quality evidence from 18 RCTs shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care, which is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17, which indicates that for every 17 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of V AP would be prevented.
Abstract: Background
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, toothbrush, or combination, together with aspiration of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.
Objectives
To assess the effects of oral hygiene care on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).
Search methods
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 17 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 December 2015), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 December 2015), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 17 December 2015), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 17 December 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to 14 January 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 14 January 2013), Wan Fang Database (January 1984 to 14 January 2013) and VIP Database (January 2012 to 4 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 17 December 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
Data collection and analysis
At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from trials with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using random-effects models unless there were fewer than four studies.
Main results
We included 38 RCTs (6016 participants). There were four main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing; powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of oral care solutions. We assessed the overall risk of bias as low in five trials (13%), high in 26 trials (68%), and unclear in seven trials (18%). We did not consider the risk of bias to be serious when assessing the quality of evidence (GRADE) for VAP incidence, but we downgraded other outcomes for risk of bias.
High quality evidence from 18 RCTs (2451 participants, 86% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 24% to about 18% (RR 0.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.62 to 0.91, P = 0.004, I2 = 35%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (95% CI 9 to 50), which indicates that for every 17 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of VAP would be prevented. There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.23, P = 0.20, I2 = 0%, 14 RCTs, 2014 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.09 days, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.55 days, P = 0.91, I2 = 36%, five RCTs, 800 participants, low quality evidence), or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD 0.21 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I2 = 9%, six RCTs, 833 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CHX on duration of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only two studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups.
We are uncertain as to the effects of toothbrushing (± antiseptics) on the outcomes of VAP (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, P = 0.11, I2 = 64%, five RCTs, 889 participants, very low quality evidence) and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.09, P = 0.24, I2 = 0%, five RCTs, 889 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether toothbrushing affects duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, adverse effects, caregivers' preferences or cost.
Only one trial (78 participants) compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush, providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review.
Fifteen trials compared various other oral care solutions. There is very weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I2 = 74%, three studies, 356 participants, high risk of bias), and that saline rinse is more effective than saline swab (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62, P < 0.001, I2 = 84%, four studies, 488 participants, high risk of bias) in reducing VAP. Due to variation in comparisons and outcomes among trials, there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions.
Authors' conclusions
OHC including chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel reduces the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients from 24% to about 18%. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. There is no evidence that OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing is different from OHC with antiseptics alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo, and saline rinse is more effective than saline swab in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.
294 citations
TL;DR: Patients should be reassessed daily to confirm ongoing suspicion of disease, antibiotics should be narrowed as soon as antibiotic susceptibility results are available, and clinicians should consider stopping antibiotics if cultures are negative.
Abstract: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most frequent ICU-acquired infections. Reported incidences vary widely from 5 to 40% depending on the setting and diagnostic criteria. VAP is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay. The estimated attributable mortality of VAP is around 10%, with higher mortality rates in surgical ICU patients and in patients with mid-range severity scores at admission. Microbiological confirmation of infection is strongly encouraged. Which sampling method to use is still a matter of controversy. Emerging microbiological tools will likely modify our routine approach to diagnosing and treating VAP in the next future. Prevention of VAP is based on minimizing the exposure to mechanical ventilation and encouraging early liberation. Bundles that combine multiple prevention strategies may improve outcomes, but large randomized trials are needed to confirm this. Treatment should be limited to 7 days in the vast majority of the cases. Patients should be reassessed daily to confirm ongoing suspicion of disease, antibiotics should be narrowed as soon as antibiotic susceptibility results are available, and clinicians should consider stopping antibiotics if cultures are negative.
287 citations
TL;DR: High-dose ceftolozane-tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population.
Abstract: Summary Background Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane–tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia. Methods We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age ( Findings Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI −5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI −6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane–tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane–tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation High-dose ceftolozane–tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population. Funding Merck & Co.
191 citations
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico1, University of Milan2, University of Bologna3, University of Milano-Bicocca4, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia5, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic6, The Catholic University of America7, Humanitas University8, Health Science University9
TL;DR: In this article, a multicenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including adult patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to eight Italian hub hospitals from February 20, 2020, through May 20, 2019 was performed.
179 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
Abstract: Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide
13,324 citations
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control1, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center3, Tufts University4, ALFA5, Karolinska University Hospital6, University of Geneva7, University of California, Los Angeles8, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital9, Brown University10, Brigham and Women's Hospital11
TL;DR: A group of international experts came together through a joint initiative by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to create a standardized international terminology with which to describe acquired resistance profiles in Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp.
8,695 citations
01 Sep 2008
TL;DR: The Methodology used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators is summarized.
Abstract: Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators
2,961 citations
University of Nebraska Medical Center1, University of Connecticut2, Harvard University3, Queen's University4, University of California, San Diego5, Stony Brook University6, University of Michigan7, National Institutes of Health8, Johns Hopkins University9, University of Barcelona10, University at Buffalo11, Summa Health System12, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio13, University of Queensland14, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital15, University of Western Australia16, University of Colorado Denver17, McMaster University18
TL;DR: These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia.
Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.
2,359 citations
TL;DR: Inadequate treatment of infections among patients requiring ICU admission appears to be an important determinant of hospital mortality, and clinical efforts aimed at reducing the occurrence of inadequate antimicrobial treatment could improve the outcomes of critically ill patients.
1,832 citations