Westyn Branch-Elliman1, Sharon B Wright2,3, Michael D Howell4,5. 1. 1 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Eastern Colorado VA Healthcare System and University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado. 2. 2 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, and. 3. 3 Silverman Institute for Health Care Quality and Safety, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 4. 4 Center for Quality and. 5. 5 Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection with high associated cost and poor patient outcomes. Many strategies for VAP reduction have been evaluated. However, the combination of strategies with the optimal cost-benefit ratio remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the preferred VAP prevention strategy, both from the hospital and societal perspectives. METHODS: A cost-benefit decision model with a Markov model was constructed. Baseline probability of VAP, death, reintubation, and discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) alive were ascertained from clinical trial data. Model inputs were obtained from the medical literature and the U.S. Department of Labor; a device cost was obtained from the manufacturer. Sensitivity analyses were completed to test the robustness of model results. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall least expensive strategy and the strategy with the best cost-benefit ratio, up to a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000-100,000 per case of VAP averted was sought. We examined a total of 120 unique combinations of VAP prevention strategies. The preferred strategy from the hospital perspective included subglottic suction endotracheal tubes, probiotics, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement VAP Prevention Bundle. The preferred strategy from the point of view of society also included additional prevention measures (oral care with chlorhexidine and selective oral decontamination). No preferred strategies included silver endotracheal tubes or selective gut decontamination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their infrequent use, current data suggest that the use of prophylactic probiotics and subglottic endotracheal tubes are cost-effective for preventing VAP from the societal and hospital perspectives.
RATIONALE: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection with high associated cost and poor patient outcomes. Many strategies for VAP reduction have been evaluated. However, the combination of strategies with the optimal cost-benefit ratio remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the preferred VAP prevention strategy, both from the hospital and societal perspectives. METHODS: A cost-benefit decision model with a Markov model was constructed. Baseline probability of VAP, death, reintubation, and discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) alive were ascertained from clinical trial data. Model inputs were obtained from the medical literature and the U.S. Department of Labor; a device cost was obtained from the manufacturer. Sensitivity analyses were completed to test the robustness of model results. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall least expensive strategy and the strategy with the best cost-benefit ratio, up to a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000-100,000 per case of VAP averted was sought. We examined a total of 120 unique combinations of VAP prevention strategies. The preferred strategy from the hospital perspective included subglottic suction endotracheal tubes, probiotics, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement VAP Prevention Bundle. The preferred strategy from the point of view of society also included additional prevention measures (oral care with chlorhexidine and selective oral decontamination). No preferred strategies included silver endotracheal tubes or selective gut decontamination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their infrequent use, current data suggest that the use of prophylactic probiotics and subglottic endotracheal tubes are cost-effective for preventing VAP from the societal and hospital perspectives.
Authors: Emanuele Rezoagli; Massimo Cressoni; Giacomo Bellani; Giacomo Grasselli; Antonio M Pesenti; Theodor Kolobow; Alberto Zanella Journal: Respir Care Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Jennie Johnstone; Maureen Meade; François Lauzier; John Marshall; Erick Duan; Joanna Dionne; Yaseen M Arabi; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Lehana Thabane; Daphnee Lamarche; Michael Surette; Nicole Zytaruk; Sangeeta Mehta; Peter Dodek; Lauralyn McIntyre; Shane English; Bram Rochwerg; Tim Karachi; William Henderson; Gordon Wood; Daniel Ovakim; Margaret Herridge; John Granton; M Elizabeth Wilcox; Alberto Goffi; Henry T Stelfox; Daniel Niven; John Muscedere; François Lamontagne; Frédérick D'Aragon; Charles St-Arnaud; Ian Ball; Dave Nagpal; Martin Girard; Pierre Aslanian; Emmanuel Charbonney; David Williamson; Wendy Sligl; Jan Friedrich; Neill K Adhikari; François Marquis; Patrick Archambault; Kosar Khwaja; Arnold Kristof; James Kutsogiannis; Ryan Zarychanski; Bojan Paunovic; Brenda Reeve; François Lellouche; Paul Hosek; Jennifer Tsang; Alexandra Binnie; Sébastien Trop; Osama Loubani; Richard Hall; Robert Cirone; Steve Reynolds; Paul Lysecki; Eyal Golan; Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba; Robert Taylor; Deborah Cook Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Geoffrey Taylor; Denise Gravel; Anne Matlow; Joanne Embree; Nicole LeSaux; Lynn Johnston; Kathryn N Suh; Michael John; John Embil; Elizabeth Henderson; Virginia Roth; Alice Wong Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 4.887