BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is classified as early-onset or late-onset, in part, to identify subjects at risk for infection with resistant pathogens. We assessed differences in the bacterial etiology of early-onset versus late-onset VAP. METHODS: Subjects enrolled in 2004-2006 in 2 clinical studies of doripenem versus imipenem or piperacillin/tazobactam, with a diagnosis of VAP (n = 500) were included in the analysis. Subjects were classified by ventilator status: early-onset VAP (< 5 d of ventilation) or late-onset VAP (≥ 5 d of ventilation). Baseline demographics and bacterial etiology were analyzed by VAP status. RESULTS: Late-onset VAP subjects had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores (mean 16.6 versus 15.5, P = .008). There were no significant differences in Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, sex, age, or presence of bacteremia between the groups. A total of 496 subjects had a baseline pathogen, and 50% of subjects in each group had ≥ 2 pathogens. With the exception of Staphylococcus aureus, which was common in early-onset VAP, the pathogens (including potentially multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens) isolated from early-onset versus late-onset VAP were not significantly different between groups. Acinetobacter baumannii or Pseudomonas aeruginosa with decreased susceptibility to any study drug was observed in early-onset and late-onset VAP subjects. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of potential MDR pathogens associated with early-onset or late-onset VAP, even in subjects with prior antibiotics. Empiric therapy for early-onset VAP should also include agents likely to be effective for potential MDR pathogens. Further prospective studies should evaluate microbiology trends in subjects with VAP.
BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is classified as early-onset or late-onset, in part, to identify subjects at risk for infection with resistant pathogens. We assessed differences in the bacterial etiology of early-onset versus late-onset VAP. METHODS: Subjects enrolled in 2004-2006 in 2 clinical studies of doripenem versus imipenem or piperacillin/tazobactam, with a diagnosis of VAP (n = 500) were included in the analysis. Subjects were classified by ventilator status: early-onset VAP (< 5 d of ventilation) or late-onset VAP (≥ 5 d of ventilation). Baseline demographics and bacterial etiology were analyzed by VAP status. RESULTS: Late-onset VAP subjects had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores (mean 16.6 versus 15.5, P = .008). There were no significant differences in Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, sex, age, or presence of bacteremia between the groups. A total of 496 subjects had a baseline pathogen, and 50% of subjects in each group had ≥ 2 pathogens. With the exception of Staphylococcus aureus, which was common in early-onset VAP, the pathogens (including potentially multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens) isolated from early-onset versus late-onset VAP were not significantly different between groups. Acinetobacter baumannii or Pseudomonas aeruginosa with decreased susceptibility to any study drug was observed in early-onset and late-onset VAP subjects. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of potential MDR pathogens associated with early-onset or late-onset VAP, even in subjects with prior antibiotics. Empiric therapy for early-onset VAP should also include agents likely to be effective for potential MDR pathogens. Further prospective studies should evaluate microbiology trends in subjects with VAP.
Entities:
Keywords:
ICU; critical care; early onset; late onset; mechanical ventilation; microbiology; outcome and process assessment; ventilator-associated pneumonia
Authors: J L Trouillet; J Chastre; A Vuagnat; M L Joly-Guillou; D Combaux; M C Dombret; C Gibert Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: I Kappstein; G Schulgen; U Beyer; K Geiger; M Schumacher; F D Daschner Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: David K Warren; Sunita J Shukla; Margaret A Olsen; Marin H Kollef; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Michael J Cox; Max M Cohen; Victoria J Fraser Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: G Prod'hom; P Leuenberger; J Koerfer; A Blum; R Chiolero; M D Schaller; C Perret; O Spinnler; J Blondel; H Siegrist; L Saghafi; D Blanc; P Francioli Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1994-04-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andre C Kalil; Mark L Metersky; Michael Klompas; John Muscedere; Daniel A Sweeney; Lucy B Palmer; Lena M Napolitano; Naomi P O'Grady; John G Bartlett; Jordi Carratalà; Ali A El Solh; Santiago Ewig; Paul D Fey; Thomas M File; Marcos I Restrepo; Jason A Roberts; Grant W Waterer; Peggy Cruse; Shandra L Knight; Jan L Brozek Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 9.079