ICU Management & Practice, Volume 16 - Issue 3, 2016

Controversies in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Diagnosis

share Share

Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a ‏major complication of mechanical ‏ventilation and represents the most ‏common reason for antibiotic prescription in ‏ventilated patients. Incidence ranges from 1.2 ‏to 8.5 cases per 1000 ventilator days or 9 to ‏27% cases per mechanically ventilated patient; ‏attributable mortality rates vary between 0% ‏and 70% (Chastre and Fagon 2002; Melsen et ‏al. 2013). The large variability of these figures ‏stems from the fact that both development and ‏outcome of VAP result from a complex interplay ‏between pathogens and host under the influence ‏of many factors: comorbidities, severity ‏and cause of the underlying critical illness, its ‏treatment and its evolution over time. Additionally, ‏uncertainty surrounds diagnosis of ‏VAP and many different diagnostic strategies ‏and criteria prevail. Clinical signs and symptoms, ‏biochemical markers of inflammation ‏and radiological signs of alveolar consolidation, ‏which are highly accurate for a diagnosis ‏of pneumonia in a walking patient in the ‏community are much less so in the critically ‏ill patient under mechanical ventilation. Clinical ‏and biochemical alterations may be absent, ‏or may have an alternative cause that can be ‏infectious or non-infectious. An infiltrate on ‏chest x-ray is required for diagnosis, as it has ‏high sensitivity, but is remarkably non-specific. ‏Inter-observer variability of chest x-ray interpretation ‏is large, especially when it comes to ‏deciding whether or not an infiltrate is ‘new’, ‏‘evolving’ and represents alveolar consolidation. ‏Increasing the number of diagnostic criteria ‏required for diagnosis gains specificity at the ‏cost of reduced sensitivity. The Clinical Pulmonary ‏Infection Score (CPIS) is a quantification ‏of these criteria in a summary score: a higher ‏CPIS score increases the likelihood that VAP is ‏present, but no single cut-off combining a high ‏sensitivity with a high or acceptable specificity ‏can be identified (Schurink et al. 2004). Despite ‏decades of study and an impressive amount ‏of published data, the question of how VAP ‏can be accurately diagnosed is not definitively ‏settled. In this contribution, four controversies ‏regarding VAP diagnosis are briefly discussed.

 

Invasively Obtained Microbiology Allows ‏Accurate Diagnosis of VAP

 

Adding microbiological data increases specificity ‏of VAP diagnosis (Chastre and Fagon ‏2002). However, the presence of a potential ‏pathogen in a respiratory sample of a mechanically ‏ventilated patient is in itself no proof for ‏VAP, as it may represent colonisation of lower ‏respiratory airways or contamination by flora ‏residing in the upper respiratory tract or in ‏the biofilm on the endotracheal tube. Invasive ‏diagnostics in VAP refer to the use of fiberoptic ‏or blind bronchoalveolar lavage or protected ‏specimen brush in order to sample more selectively ‏the distal airways and alveoli. Using these ‏samples for direct examination for the presence ‏of intracellular pathogens in alveolar macrophages ‏or polymorphonuclears and for quantitative ‏culturing further helps to distinguish ‏between colonisation and infection (Chastre ‏and Fagon 2002; Torres et al. 1996; Pugin et ‏al. 1991). As such, quantitative cultures of ‏invasively obtained samples may improve the ‏specificity of VAP diagnosis more than qualitative ‏culture of routinely obtained endotracheal ‏aspirates. However, the selection of a threshold ‏for quantitative cultures to discriminate ‏between infection and colonisation again ‏must strike a balance between specificity and ‏sensitivity. Thresholds for diagnosing VAP may ‏differ between populations. For example, some ‏authors have argued in favour of using a higher ‏threshold (>105 colony-forming units (CFU)/ ‏ml) in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples of ‏trauma patients than the one usually applied in ‏medical patients (>104 CFU/ml, to reduce the ‏number of false positives (Croce et al. 2004). ‏On the other hand, in patients who received ‏antibiotics prior to their BAL, the quantitative ‏threshold for VAP diagnosis should probably be ‏lowered to limit the number of false negatives. ‏However, in the absence of a true gold standard ‏for the diagnosis of VAP, test characteristics of ‏invasive microbiological techniques are not well ‏established. Quantitative cultures themselves are ‏often used as a form of gold standard to which ‏other diagnostic tests are compared, which may ‏lead to a form of circular reasoning (Pugin et ‏al. 1991). Regardless of the higher specificity ‏of invasive microbiology, clinical characteristics ‏must always be taken into account for a diagnosis ‏of VAP, as many patients with prolonged ‏mechanical ventilation have a high burden of ‏bacteria in the lower airways without signs of ‏infection (Baram et al. 2006). ‏

 

Invasively Obtained Microbiology ‏Improves Outcome in VAP

 

Proponents of invasive diagnostic strategies in ‏VAP have argued that these techniques improve patient outcome. The outcome benefit is attributed to the higher ‏diagnostic specificity, which helps the attending physician to avoid ‏unnecessary antibiotics and/or direct a search for alternative diagnosis ‏if VAP is refuted (Fagon et al. 2000). In a recent study, diagnostic ‏workup of clinically suspected VAP with invasively obtained quantitative ‏cultures below threshold led to an alternative diagnosis in ‏60% of cases (Schoemakers et al. 2014). Proponents of noninvasive ‏diagnostics state that the main treatment factor influencing outcome ‏is timely and appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy directed at all ‏likely involved pathogens; microbiological data serve only to guide ‏subsequent de-escalation of antibiotics. For this purpose, routine ‏endotracheal samples and semi-quantitative cultures may suffice ‏(Canadian Critical Care Trials Group 2006). In this view, invasive ‏sampling adds little benefit for the patient and has the disadvantage ‏of increased costs and potentially delayed effective therapy. A ‏meta-analysis comparing invasive and noninvasive strategies for ‏VAP diagnosis found no difference in outcome (Shorr et al. 2005), ‏but this has not settled the controversy. Recently, the need for antibiotic ‏stewardship measures in VAP management has revived the ‏discussion. Identification of the causal pathogen of VAP has been ‏identified as the main factor promoting de-escalation of empirical ‏antibiotics. As invasively obtained microbiological cultures are more ‏likely to represent the true causal pathogens of VAP compared to ‏cultures from noninvasive samples, the physician may be given ‏greater confidence to de-escalate. Giantsou et al. (2007) indeed ‏found higher de-escalation rates in patients subjected to BAL instead ‏of endotracheal aspirates. In addition, the higher specificity of ‏quantitative cultures in suspected VAP, translating into fewer false ‏positives, would also lead to fewer unnecessary antibiotic treatments ‏(Sharpe et al. 2015). However, in the Canadian Critical Care ‏Trials Group trial, which randomised between an invasive and a ‏noninvasive strategy for VAP diagnosis, no differences in the rate ‏of de-escalation or antibiotic stop were found between both arms, ‏nor was patient outcome different (Canadian Critical Care Trials ‏Group 2006). In addition, increased focus on antibiotic stopping ‏whenever possible, using repeated clinical evaluations (Micek et ‏al. 2004; Singh et al. 2000), or a protocol guided by sequential ‏procalcitonin measurements (De Jong et al. 2016) may achieve a ‏major effect without the use of invasive microbiology.


See Also: Nosocomial Pneumonia

 

Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis (VAT) is a Separate ‏Condition of VAP

 

The observation that patients may have all clinical signs and symptoms ‏of VAP and respond to the microbiological criteria of VAP ‏in the absence of unambiguous infiltrates on chest x-ray has led to ‏the concept of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT). VAT ‏represents a more limited infection of the lower respiratory tract ‏in ventilated patients. The association between VAT and mortality ‏is less obvious than in VAP, yet VAT appears to be associated with ‏a longer duration of mechanical ventilation (Nseir et al. 2005). It ‏is not clear whether VAT represents a precursor or early stage of ‏VAP, i.e. whether untreated it proceeds to VAP, or whether it is a ‏milder stage of infection, sitting in the continuum between lower ‏respiratory tract colonisation and clear-cut VAP (Rouby et al. 1992). ‏Moreover, as the absence of a new or worsening infiltrate on chest ‏x-ray makes the only distinction between VAT and VAP, inter-observer variability may lead to false classification of VAP ‏as VAT. VAT may progress to VAP in a third of ‏cases (Dallas et al. 2011); antibiotic treatment ‏of VAT thus may prevent evolution to VAP in ‏some patients but may not influence outcome in ‏others. Given the necessity to restrict antibiotics ‏as part of antibiotic stewardship, treatment of ‏VAT is not straightforward. Antibiotic therapy ‏in VAT, e.g. as delivered by inhalation (Palmer ‏et al. 2008) or systemically as a short course ‏(Nseir et al. 2008), may prevent full VAP and ‏thus have an overall antibiotic-sparing effect. ‏On the other hand, a strategy in which VAT ‏routinely is considered as an indication for ‏antibiotic therapy will increase the number of ‏antibiotic prescriptions in patients who will not ‏directly benefit from it, but still are exposed ‏to the harmful effects of antibiotics, especially ‏increased selection pressure.

 

Ventilator-Associated Events (VAE) Are a ‏Better Concept for Monitoring of Quality ‏of Intensive Care

 

The lack of accuracy of diagnostic criteria of ‏VAP, and especially the inter-observer variability ‏of chest x-ray interpretation hampers the ‏use of VAP as a quality indicator for benchmarking ‏intensive care unit (ICUs). Ego et al. ‏(2015) found that VAP incidence in their ICU ‏population varied tremendously according to ‏the different sets of diagnostic criteria used. ‏Reports about achieving zero VAP rates may thus ‏reflect the use of overly specific (and too little ‏sensitive) diagnostic criteria rather than true ‏absence of VAP. This has led to a radical change ‏in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ‏(CDC) approach to surveillance of complications ‏of mechanical ventilation, dismissing ‏subjective criteria (such as chest x-ray interpretation) ‏and broadening the concept of VAP ‏to that of ventilator-associated events (VAE). ‏VAE refers to a respiratory deterioration of ‏a mechanically ventilated patient after initial ‏improvement and stabilisation, and is diagnosed ‏on the basis of more objective criteria such ‏as ventilator settings and oxygenation indices: ‏this deterioration may or may not be due to ‏infection. A new definition of VAP is tied within ‏this framework and is defined as VAE together ‏with signs of inflammation or newly started ‏antibiotics, purulent secretions and presence ‏of pathogens in respiratory cultures: the label ‏‘possible VAP’ and ‘probable VAP’ is applied if ‏only one, and two respectively, of the last two ‏criteria are met. Studies have shown that VAE ‏poorly correlate with ‘traditionally diagnosed’ ‏VAP (Klein Kouwenberg et al. 2013): less severe ‏VAP is missed by VAE and a large number of ‏VAE are not due to VAP. On the other hand, ‏Bouadma et al. (2015) found a good correlation ‏between VAE and antibiotic consumption ‏in their multicentre OUTCOMEREA database, ‏suggesting that VAE could represent a proxy for ‏true VAP. Whether or not VAE is preventable is ‏a matter of discussion (Klompas et al. 2015); ‏this is however a cardinal prerequisite for its ‏use as a quality indicator.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

Pieter Depuydt declares that he has no conflict ‏of interest. Liesbet De Bus declares that ‏she has no conflict of interest.

 

Abbreviations

 

BAL bronchoalveolar lavage

CFU colony-forming unit

CPIS Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score

ICU intensive care unit

VAE ventilator-associated event

VAP ventilator-associated pneumonia

VAT ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis



References:

Baram D, Hulse G, Palmer LB (2005) Stable patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation have a high alveolar burden of bacteria. Chest 127(4): 1353-7.

PubMed


Bouadma L, Sonneville R, Garrouste-Orgeas M et al. (2015) Ventilator-associated events : prevalence, outcome, and relationship with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med, 43(9): 1798-806.

PubMed

 

Canadian Critical Care Trials Group et al. (2006) A randomized trial of diagnostic techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med, 355(25): 2619-30.

PubMed


Chastre J, Fagon JY (2002) Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 165(7): 867-903.

PubMed


Croce MA, Fabian TC, Mueller EW et al. (2004) The appropriate diagnostic threshold for ventilator-associated pneumonia using quantitative cultures. J Trauma, 56(5): 931-4.

PubMed


Dallas J, Skrupky L, Abebe N et al. (2011) Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis in a mixed surgical and medical ICU population. Chest, 139(3): 513-8.

PubMed


de Jong E, van Oers JA, Beishuizen A et al. (2016) Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Infect Dis, 16(7): 819-27.

PubMed


Ego A, Preiser JC, Vincent JL (2015) Impact of diagnostic criteria on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest, 147(2): 347-55.

PubMed

Fagon JY, Chastre J, Wolff M et al. (2000) Invasive and noninvasive strategies for management of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med, 132(8): 621-30.

PubMed

Giantsou E, Liratzopoulos N, Efraimidou E et al. (2007) De-escalation therapy rates are significantly higher by bronchoalveolar lavage than by tracheal aspirate. Intensive Care Med, 33(9): 1533-40.

PubMed


Klein Kouwenberg PMC, Van Mourik MSM, Ong DSY et al. (2013) Validation of a novel surveillance paradigm for ventilator-associated events. Crit Care, 17(Suppl 4).

Article


Klompas M (2012) Is a ventilator-associated pneumonia rate of zero really possible? Curr Opin Infect Dis, 25(2): 176-82.

PubMed


Klompas M, Anderson D, Trick W et al. (2015) The preventability of ventilator-associated events. The CDC Prevention Epicenters Wake up and Breathe Collaborative. Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 191(3): 292-301.

PubMed


Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Groenwold RH et al. (2013) Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised prevention studies. Lancet Infect Dis, 13(8): 665-71.

PubMed


Micek ST, Ward S, Fraser VJ et al. (2004) A randomized controlled trial of an antibiotic discontinuation policy for clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest, 125(5): 1791-9.

PubMed


Nseir S, Di Pompeo C, Soubrier S et al. (2005) Effect of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis on outcome in patients without chronic respiratory failure: a case-control study. Crit Care, 9(3): R238-45.

PubMed


Nseir S, Favory R, Jozefowicz E et al. (2008) Antimicrobial treatment for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Critical Care, 12(3): R62.

PubMed


Palmer LB, Smaldone GC, Chen JJ et al. (2008) Aerosolized antibiotics and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med, 36(7): 2008-13.

PubMed


Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Mili N et al. (1991) Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic “blind” bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis, 143(5 Pt 1): 1121-9.

PubMed


Rouby JJ, Martin de Lassale E, Poete P et al. (1992) Nosocomial bronchopneumonia in the critically ill. Am Rev Respir Dis, 146(4): 1059-66.

PubMed


Schoemakers RJ, Schnabel R, Oudhuis G et al. (2014) Alternative diagnosis in the putative ventilator-associated pneumonia patients not meeting lavage-based diagnostic criteria. Scand J Infect Dis, 46(12): 868-74.

PubMed


Schurink C, Van Nieuwenhoven CA, Jacobs JA et al. (2004) Clinical pulmonary infection score for ventilator-associated pneumonia: accuracy and inter-observer variability. Intensive Care Med, 30(2): 217-24.

PubMed

Sharpe JP, Magnotti LJ, Weinberg JA et al. (2015) Adherence to an established diagnostic threshold for ventilator-associated pneumonia contributes to low false-negative rates in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 78(3): 468-73.

PubMed


Shorr AF, Sherner JH, Jackson Wl et al. (2005) Invasive approaches to the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med, 33(1): 46-53.

PubMed


Singh N, Rogers P, Atwood CW et al. (2000) Short-course empiric antibiotic therapy for patients with pulmonary infiltrates in the intensive care unit: a proposed solution for indiscriminate antibiotic prescription. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 162(2 Pt 1): 505-11.

PubMed


Torres A, El-Ebiary M, Fábregas N et al. (1996) Value of intracellular bacteria detection in the diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia. Thorax, 51(4): 378-84.

PubMed 




Related Articles

The intraosseous needle is an essential tool in emergency settings when initial vascular access is difficult to achieve. This... Read more

Implementation of a sepsis code, Código Sepsis, in October 2015 at the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona has led... Read more

An overview of the recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of immune system dysfunction in sepsis. Sepsis is defined... Read more

ventilator-associated pneumonia, ventilator-associated events, diagnosis Controversies in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Diagnosis

No comment


Please login to leave a comment...

Highlighted Products