OBJECTIVE: To compare 28-day mortality rates and clinical outcomes in ICU patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia according to the diagnostic strategy used. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial. Of the 73 patients included in the study, 36 and 37 were randomized to undergo BAL or endotracheal aspiration (EA), respectively. Antibiotic therapy was based on guidelines and was adjusted according to the results of quantitative cultures. RESULTS: The 28-day mortality rate was similar in the BAL and EA groups (25.0% and 37.8%, respectively; p = 0.353). There were no differences between the groups regarding the duration of mechanical ventilation, antibiotic therapy, secondary complications, VAP recurrence, or length of ICU and hospital stay. Initial antibiotic therapy was deemed appropriate in 28 (77.8%) and 30 (83.3%) of the patients in the BAL and EA groups, respectively (p = 0.551). The 28-day mortality rate was not associated with the appropriateness of initial therapy in the BAL and EA groups (appropriate therapy: 35.7% vs. 43.3%; p = 0.553; and inappropriate therapy: 62.5% vs. 50.0%; p = 1.000). Previous use of antibiotics did not affect the culture yield in the EA or BAL group (p = 0.130 and p = 0.484, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of this study, the management of VAP patients, based on the results of quantitative endotracheal aspirate cultures, led to similar clinical outcomes to those obtained with the results of quantitative BAL fluid cultures.
Background Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. MethodsIn this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middleincome countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42•4% vs 44•2%; absolute difference -1•69 [-9•58 to 6•11] p=0•67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H 2 O; p=0•0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30•5% vs 19•9%; p=0•0004; adjusted effect 16•41% [95% CI 9•52-23•52]; p<0•0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0•80 [95% CI 0•75-0•86]; p<0•0001).Interpretation Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.