Jennifer P Stevens1, George Silva2, Jean Gillis2, Victor Novack3, Daniel Talmor4, Michael Klompas5, Michael D Howell6. 1. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Division for Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jpsteven@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Soroka Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Be'er Sheva, Israel. 4. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Population Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Center for Quality, and Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has implemented a new, multitiered definition for ventilator-associated events (VAEs) to replace their former definition of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We hypothesized that the new definition could be implemented in an automated, efficient, and reliable manner using the electronic health record and that the new definition would identify different patients than those identified under the previous definition. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using an automated algorithm to analyze all patients admitted to the ICU at a single urban, tertiary-care hospital from 2008 to 2013. RESULTS: We identified 26,466 consecutive admissions to the ICU, 10,998 (42%) of whom were mechanically ventilated and 675 (3%) of whom were identified as having any VAE. Any VAE was associated with an adjusted increased risk of death (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.53-2.37; P < .0001). The automated algorithm was reliable (sensitivity of 93.5%, 95% CI, 77.2%-98.8%; specificity of 100%, 95% CI, 98.8%-100% vs a human abstractor). Comparison of patients with a VAE and with the former VAP definition yielded little agreement (κ = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: A fully automated method of identifying VAEs is efficient and reliable within a single institution. Although VAEs are strongly associated with worse patient outcomes, additional research is required to evaluate whether and which interventions can successfully prevent VAEs.
BACKGROUND: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has implemented a new, multitiered definition for ventilator-associated events (VAEs) to replace their former definition of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We hypothesized that the new definition could be implemented in an automated, efficient, and reliable manner using the electronic health record and that the new definition would identify different patients than those identified under the previous definition. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using an automated algorithm to analyze all patients admitted to the ICU at a single urban, tertiary-care hospital from 2008 to 2013. RESULTS: We identified 26,466 consecutive admissions to the ICU, 10,998 (42%) of whom were mechanically ventilated and 675 (3%) of whom were identified as having any VAE. Any VAE was associated with an adjusted increased risk of death (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.53-2.37; P < .0001). The automated algorithm was reliable (sensitivity of 93.5%, 95% CI, 77.2%-98.8%; specificity of 100%, 95% CI, 98.8%-100% vs a human abstractor). Comparison of patients with a VAE and with the former VAP definition yielded little agreement (κ = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: A fully automated method of identifying VAEs is efficient and reliable within a single institution. Although VAEs are strongly associated with worse patient outcomes, additional research is required to evaluate whether and which interventions can successfully prevent VAEs.
Authors: Michael D Howell; Victor Novack; Philip Grgurich; Diane Soulliard; Lena Novack; Michael Pencina; Daniel Talmor Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-05-10
Authors: Michael Klompas; Ken Kleinman; Yosef Khan; R Scott Evans; James F Lloyd; Kurt Stevenson; Matthew Samore; Richard Platt Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Michael Klompas; Yosef Khan; Kenneth Kleinman; R Scott Evans; James F Lloyd; Kurt Stevenson; Matthew Samore; Richard Platt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Eric S Rosenthal; Yu-Ping Shao; Siddharth Biswal; Manohar Ghanta; Erin E Ryan; Dolores Suslak; Nancy Swanson; Valdery Moura Junior; David C Hooper; M Brandon Westover Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jennifer P Stevens; Tenzin Dechen; Richard Schwartzstein; Carl O'Donnell; Kathy Baker; Michael D Howell; Robert B Banzett Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Nathaniel J Rhodes; Caroline E Cruce; J Nicholas O'Donnell; Richard G Wunderink; Alan R Hauser Journal: Curr Infect Dis Rep Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.725
Authors: Shelley S Magill; Qunna Li; Cindy Gross; Margaret Dudeck; Katherine Allen-Bridson; Jonathan R Edwards Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 7.598