Ventilator-associated pneumonia and ICU mortality in severe ARDS patients ventilated according to a lung-protective strategy

110Citations
Citations of this article
236Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) may contribute to the mortality associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to determine the incidence, outcome, and risk factors of bacterial VAP complicating severe ARDS in patients ventilated by using a strictly standardized lung-protective strategy.Methods: This prospective epidemiologic study was done in all the 339 patients with severe ARDS included in a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial of cisatracurium besylate in severe ARDS patients. Patients with suspected VAP underwent bronchoalveolar lavage to confirm the diagnosis.Results: Ninety-eight (28.9%) patients had at least one episode of microbiologically documented bacterial VAP, including 41 (41.8%) who died in the ICU, compared with 74 (30.7%) of the 241 patients without VAP (P = 0.05). After adjustment, age and severity at baseline, but not VAP, were associated with ICU death. Cisatracurium besylate therapy within 2 days of ARDS onset decreased the risk of ICU death. Factors independently associated with an increased risk to develop a VAP were male sex and worse admission Glasgow Coma Scale score. Tracheostomy, enteral nutrition, and the use of a subglottic secretion-drainage device were protective.Conclusions: In patients with severe ARDS receiving lung-protective ventilation, VAP was associated with an increased crude ICU mortality which did not remain significant after adjustment. © 2012 Papazian et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Forel, J. M., Voillet, F., Pulina, D., Gacouin, A., Perrin, G., Barrau, K., … Papazian, L. (2012). Ventilator-associated pneumonia and ICU mortality in severe ARDS patients ventilated according to a lung-protective strategy. Critical Care, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11312

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free