Alexandre Gaudet1,2, Matthieu Devos1, Sylvain Keignart1, Olivier Pouly1, Sylvain Lecailtel1, Frédéric Wallet3, Saad Nseir1,4. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Center, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 2. Univ. Lille, CNRS, Inserm, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, U1019-UMR9017-CIIL-Centre d'Infection et d'Immunité de Lille, Lille, France. 3. Microbiology Laboratory, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 4. Team Fungal Associated Invasive & Inflammatory Diseases, Lille Inflammation Research International Center, INSERM U995, Université de Lille, Lille, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early distinguishing ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains difficult in the daily practice. However, this question appears clinically relevant, as treatments of VAT and VAP currently differ. In this study, we assessed the accuracy of sepsis criteria according to the Sepsis-3 definition in the early distinction between VAT and VAP. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort, including all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of VAT (n = 70) or VAP (n = 136), during a 2-year period. Accuracy of sepsis criteria according to Sepsis-3, total SOFA and respiratory SOFA, calculated at time of microbiological sampling were assessed in differentiating VAT from VAP, and in predicting mortality on ICU discharge. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of sepsis criteria were found respectively at 0.4 and 0.91 to distinguish VAT from VAP, and at 0.38 and 0.75 for the prediction of mortality in VA-LRTI. A total SOFA ≥ 6 and a respiratory SOFA ≥ 3 were identified as the best cut-offs for these criteria in differentiating VAT from VAP, with sensitivity and specificity respectively found at 0.63 and 0.69 for total SOFA, and at 0.49 and 0.7 for respiratory SOFA. Additionally, for prediction of mortality, a total SOFA ≥ 7 and a respiratory SOFA = 4 were identified as the best-cut-offs, respectively yielding sensitivity and specificity at 0.56 and 0.61 for total SOFA, and at 0.22 and 0.95 for respiratory SOFA. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis criteria according to the Sepsis-3 definition show a high specificity but a low sensitivity for the diagnosis of VAP. Our results do not support the use of these criteria for the early diagnosis of VAP in patients with VA-LRTI.
BACKGROUND: Early distinguishing ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains difficult in the daily practice. However, this question appears clinically relevant, as treatments of VAT and VAP currently differ. In this study, we assessed the accuracy of sepsis criteria according to the Sepsis-3 definition in the early distinction between VAT and VAP. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort, including all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of VAT (n = 70) or VAP (n = 136), during a 2-year period. Accuracy of sepsis criteria according to Sepsis-3, total SOFA and respiratory SOFA, calculated at time of microbiological sampling were assessed in differentiating VAT from VAP, and in predicting mortality on ICU discharge. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of sepsis criteria were found respectively at 0.4 and 0.91 to distinguish VAT from VAP, and at 0.38 and 0.75 for the prediction of mortality in VA-LRTI. A total SOFA ≥ 6 and a respiratory SOFA ≥ 3 were identified as the best cut-offs for these criteria in differentiating VAT from VAP, with sensitivity and specificity respectively found at 0.63 and 0.69 for total SOFA, and at 0.49 and 0.7 for respiratory SOFA. Additionally, for prediction of mortality, a total SOFA ≥ 7 and a respiratory SOFA = 4 were identified as the best-cut-offs, respectively yielding sensitivity and specificity at 0.56 and 0.61 for total SOFA, and at 0.22 and 0.95 for respiratory SOFA. CONCLUSIONS:Sepsis criteria according to the Sepsis-3 definition show a high specificity but a low sensitivity for the diagnosis of VAP. Our results do not support the use of these criteria for the early diagnosis of VAP in patients with VA-LRTI.
Authors: K L Butler; K E Sinclair; V J Henderson; G McKinney; D A Mesidor; I Katon-Benitez; W L Weaver Journal: Am Surg Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Antoni Torres; Michael S Niederman; Jean Chastre; Santiago Ewig; Patricia Fernandez-Vandellos; Hakan Hanberger; Marin Kollef; Gianluigi Li Bassi; Carlos M Luna; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; J Artur Paiva; Robert C Read; David Rigau; Jean François Timsit; Tobias Welte; Richard Wunderink Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Shelley S Magill; Michael Klompas; Robert Balk; Suzanne M Burns; Clifford S Deutschman; Daniel Diekema; Scott Fridkin; Linda Greene; Alice Guh; David Gutterman; Beth Hammer; David Henderson; Dean Hess; Nicholas S Hill; Teresa Horan; Marin Kollef; Mitchell Levy; Edward Septimus; Carole VanAntwerpen; Don Wright; Pamela Lipsett Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Wesley H Self; D Mark Courtney; Candace D McNaughton; Richard G Wunderink; Jeffrey A Kline Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Marc Le Pape; Céline Besnard; Camelia Acatrinei; Jérôme Guinard; Maxime Boutrot; Claire Genève; Thierry Boulain; François Barbier Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 10.318