OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of a Bayesian Decision-Support System (BDSS) for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). DESIGN: A previously developed BDSS, automatically obtaining patient data from patient information systems, provides likelihood predictions of VAP. In a prospectively studied cohort of 872 ICU patients, VAP was diagnosed by two infectious-disease specialists using a decision tree (reference diagnosis). After internal validation daily BDSS predictions were compared with the reference diagnosis. For data analysis two approaches were pursued: using BDSS predictions (a) for all 9422 patient days, and (b) only for the 238 days with presumed respiratory tract infections (RTI) according to the responsible physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: 157 (66%) of 238 days with presumed RTI fulfilled criteria for VAP. In approach (a), median daily BDSS likelihood predictions for days with and without VAP were 77% [Interquartile range (IQR) = 56-91%] and 14% [IQR 5-42%, p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test (MWU)], respectively. In receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, optimal BDSS cut-off point for VAP was 46%, and with this cut-off point positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 6.1 and 99.6%, respectively [AUC = 0.857 (95% CI 0.827-0.888)]. In approach (b), optimal cut-off for VAP was 78%, and with this cut-off point PPV and NPV were 86 and 66%, respectively [AUC = 0.846 (95% CI 0.794-0.899)]. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with the reference diagnosis, the BDSS had good test characteristics for diagnosing VAP, and might become a useful tool for assisting ICU physicians, both for routinely daily assessment and in patients clinically suspected of having VAP. Empirical validation of its performance is now warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of a Bayesian Decision-Support System (BDSS) for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). DESIGN: A previously developed BDSS, automatically obtaining patient data from patient information systems, provides likelihood predictions of VAP. In a prospectively studied cohort of 872 ICU patients, VAP was diagnosed by two infectious-disease specialists using a decision tree (reference diagnosis). After internal validation daily BDSS predictions were compared with the reference diagnosis. For data analysis two approaches were pursued: using BDSS predictions (a) for all 9422 patient days, and (b) only for the 238 days with presumed respiratory tract infections (RTI) according to the responsible physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: 157 (66%) of 238 days with presumed RTI fulfilled criteria for VAP. In approach (a), median daily BDSS likelihood predictions for days with and without VAP were 77% [Interquartile range (IQR) = 56-91%] and 14% [IQR 5-42%, p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test (MWU)], respectively. In receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, optimal BDSS cut-off point for VAP was 46%, and with this cut-off point positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 6.1 and 99.6%, respectively [AUC = 0.857 (95% CI 0.827-0.888)]. In approach (b), optimal cut-off for VAP was 78%, and with this cut-off point PPV and NPV were 86 and 66%, respectively [AUC = 0.846 (95% CI 0.794-0.899)]. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with the reference diagnosis, the BDSS had good test characteristics for diagnosing VAP, and might become a useful tool for assisting ICU physicians, both for routinely daily assessment and in patients clinically suspected of having VAP. Empirical validation of its performance is now warranted.
Authors: M J Bonten; D C Bergmans; A W Ambergen; P W de Leeuw; S van der Geest; E E Stobberingh; C A Gaillard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: M Ruiz; A Torres; S Ewig; M A Marcos; A Alcón; R Lledó; M A Asenjo; A Maldonaldo Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: A H Froon; M J Bonten; C A Gaillard; J W Greve; M A Dentener; P W de Leeuw; M Drent; E E Stobberingh; W A Buurman Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: John C O'Horo; Rahul Kashyap; Ronaldo Sevilla Berrios; Vitaly Herasevich; Priya Sampathkumar Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Jonathan A Forsberg; Elizabeth Silvius; Matthew Wagner; Vivek Khatri; Seth A Schobel; Arnaud J Belard; Amy C Weintrob; David R Tribble; Eric A Elster Journal: Mil Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Stefan Visscher; Carolina A M Schurink; Wilhelmina G Melsen; Peter J F Lucas; Marc J M Bonten Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-08 Impact factor: 17.440