Advancing the science of ventilator-associated pneumonia surveillance

The landmark Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control definitively demonstrated that infection surveillance and control programs prevent hospital-acquired infections. The rise of public reporting, benchmarking, and pay for performance movements, however, has considerably changed the infection surveillance landscape in the 27 years since this study was published. Clinically nuanced surveillance definitions that served the profession well for many years have fallen into disfavor because their complexity and subjectivity allow for conscious and subconscious gaming. These limitations make it very difficult to determine whether changes in surveillance rates represent true changes in disease incidence or artifacts of definition subjectivity, external reporting pressures, and internal biases. Surveillance definitions need to be revised to enhance objectivity and to ensure that they detect clinically meaningful events associated with compromised outcomes. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released modified definitions for ventilator-associated events that have the potential to make safety surveillance for ventilated patients more credible and useful once again

The paradox of ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention measures

There is a striking paradox in the literature supporting high-profile measures to reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP): many studies show significant reductions in VAP rates but almost none show any impact on patients' duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, or mortality. The paradox is largely attributable to lack of specificity in the VAP definition. The clinical and microbiological criteria for VAP capture a population of patients with an array of conditions that range from serious to benign. Many of the benign events are manifestations of bacterial colonization superimposed upon pulmonary edema, atelectasis, or other non-infectious processes. VAP prevention measures that work by decreasing bacterial colonization preferentially lower the frequency of these mislabelled, more benign events. In addition, misclassification obscures detection of an impact of prevention measures on bona fide pneumonias. Together, these effects create the possibility of the paradox where a prevention measure may have a large impact on VAP rates but minimal impact on patients' outcomes. The paradox makes changes in VAP rates alone an unreliable measure of whether VAP prevention measures are truly beneficial to patients and behooves us to measure their impact on patient outcomes before advocating their adoption

Staphylococcus Intermedius Infections: Case Report and Literature Review

Staphylococcus intermedius is part of the normal skin and oral flora of dogs. Case reports of human infections are rare, but the true incidence is unknown because the pathogen is frequently misidentified as Staphylococcus aureus. Reported cases range from soft tissue infections to brain abscess. Most reported cases in humans have been related to dog exposure. We report a case of a 73 year old female with S. intermedius surgical wound infection one month following a left elbow total arthroplasty. This is the first reported human case of S. intermedius infection of a mechanical prosthesis. The presumed source of infection was the patient’s dog. The patient was treated with vancomycin, then switched to cefazolin and rifampin once susceptibilities were known. Case reports suggest that patients generally respond well to tailored antibiotics with complete or near-complete recovery. S. intermedius should be included in the differential diagnosis of invasive infection amongst patients with close contact with dogs

Interrater reliability of surveillance for ventilator-associated events and pneumonia

OBJECTIVETo compare interrater reliabilities for ventilator-associated event (VAE) surveillance, traditional ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance, and clinical diagnosis of VAP by intensivists.DESIGNA retrospective study nested within a prospective multicenter quality improvement study.SETTINGIntensive care units (ICUs) within 5 hospitals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters.PATIENTSPatients who underwent mechanical ventilation.METHODSWe selected 150 charts for review, including all VAEs and traditionally defined VAPs identified during the primary study and randomly selected charts of patients without VAEs or VAPs. Each chart was independently reviewed by 2 research assistants (RAs) for VAEs, 2 hospital infection preventionists (IPs) for traditionally defined VAP, and 2 intensivists for any episodes of pulmonary deterioration. We calculated interrater agreement using κ estimates.RESULTSThe 150 selected episodes spanned 2,500 ventilator days. In total, 93–96 VAEs were identified by RAs; 31–49 VAPs were identified by IPs, and 29–35 VAPs were diagnosed by intensivists. Interrater reliability between RAs for VAEs was high (κ, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59–0.81). Agreement between IPs using traditional VAP criteria was slight (κ, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.05–0.29). Agreement between intensivists was slight regarding episodes of pulmonary deterioration (κ 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05–0.39) and was fair regarding whether episodes of deterioration were attributable to clinically defined VAP (κ, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.51). The clinical correlation between VAE surveillance and intensivists’ clinical assessments was poor.CONCLUSIONSProspective surveillance using VAE criteria is more reliable than traditional VAP surveillance and clinical VAP diagnosis; the correlation between VAEs and clinically recognized pulmonary deterioration is poor.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:172–178</jats:sec

Treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: Hospital-acquired pneumonia remains the most lethal and expensive nosocomial infection worldwide. Optimal therapy remains controversial. We aimed to compare mortality and clinical response outcomes in patients treated with either linezolid or vancomycin. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Evidence-based Medicine BMJ and abstracts from infectious diseases and critical care meetings were searched through April 2013. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies All randomised clinical trials comparing linezolid to vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia. Data extraction Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. One author extracted the data and two authors rechecked and verified all data. Results: Nine randomised trials with a total of 4026 patients were included. The adjusted absolute mortality risk difference (RD) between linezolid and vancomycin was 0.01% (95% CI −2.1% to 2.1%; p=0.992; I2=13.5%. The adjusted absolute clinical response difference was 0.9% (95% CI −1.2% to 3.1%; p=0.409; I2=0%. The risk of both microbiological (RD=5.6%, 95% CI −2.2% to 13.3%; p=0.159; I2=0%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (RD=6.4%, 95% CI −4.1% to 16.9%; p=0.230; I2=0%) eradication were not different between linezolid and vancomycin. Gastrointestinal side effects were more frequent with linezolid (RD=0.8% (95% CI 0% to 1.5%; p=0.05), but no differences were found with renal failure, thrombocytopenia and drug discontinuation due to adverse events. Our sample size provided 99.9% statistical power to detect differences between drugs regarding clinical response and mortality. Conclusions: Linezolid and vancomycin have similar efficacy and safety profiles. The high statistical power and the near-zero efficacy difference between both antibiotics demonstrates that no drug is superior for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia

Obesity as a risk factor for severe influenza-like illness

Background: Obesity was recognized as in independent risk factor for influenza during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Objectives: We evaluated the association between body mass index (BMI) and influenza-like illness (ILI) during two non-pandemic influenza seasons (2003–2004 and 2004–2005) and during the spring and fall waves of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Methods: Adults with severe (inpatient) and mild (outpatient) ILI were compared to those without ILI using a case-cohort design. The study was nested among those insured by a single health insurance company, receiving care from a large multispecialty practice. Data were collected from insurance claims and the electronic health record. The primary exposure was obesity (BMI ≥ 30·0 kg/m2). Results: Across three seasons, the crude and adjusted ORs for obesity and severe ILI were 1·65 (95% CI 1·31, 2·08) and 1·23 (95% CI 0·97, 1·57), respectively. An association was observed for those aged 20–59 years (adjusted OR 1·92, 95% CI 1·26, 2·90), but not for those 60 and older (adjusted OR 1·08, 95% CI 0·80, 1·46). The adjusted ORs for obesity and severe ILI in 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and during H1N1 were 1·14 (95% CI 0·80, 1·64), 1·24 (95% CI 0·86, 1·79), and 1·76 (95% CI 0·91, 3·42), respectively. Among those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of zero, the adjusted ORs for 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and H1N1 were 1·60 (95% CI 0·93, 2·76), 1·43 (95% CI 0·80, 2·56), and 1·90 (95% CI 0·68, 5·27), respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest a small to moderate association between obesity and hospitalized ILI among adults