Economic Impact of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Large Matched Cohort
To evaluate the economic impact of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) on length of stay and hospital costs. Design. Retrospective matched cohort study.
Premier database of hospitals in the United States.
Eligible patients were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), received mechanical ventilation for ≥2 calendar-days, and were discharged between October 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009.
VAP was defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), code 997.31 and ventilation charges for ≥2 calendar-days. We matched patients with VAP to patients without VAP by propensity score on the basis of demographics, administrative data, and severity of illness. Cost was based on provider perspective and procedural cost accounting methods.
Of 88,689 eligible patients, 2,238 (2.5%) had VAP; the incidence rate was 1.27 per 1,000 ventilation-days. In the matched cohort, patients with VAP ([Formula: see text]) had longer mean durations of mechanical ventilation (21.8 vs 10.3 days), ICU stay (20.5 vs 11.6 days), and hospitalization (32.6 vs 19.5 days; all [Formula: see text]) than patients without VAP ([Formula: see text]). Mean hospitalization costs were $99,598 for patients with VAP and $59,770 for patients without VAP ([Formula: see text]), resulting in an absolute difference of $39,828. Patients with VAP had a lower in-hospital mortality rate than patients without VAP (482/2,144 [22.5%] vs 630/2,144 [29.4%]; [Formula: see text]).
Our findings suggest that VAP continues to occur as defined by the new specific ICD-9 code and is associated with a statistically significant resource utilization burden, which underscores the need for cost-effective interventions to minimize the occurrence of this complication.
Available from: Ornella Piazza
- "VAP represents an important challenge for the intensivist, as it amounts for more than 50% of infections in the ICU  , and afflicts a range from 8 to 28% of mechanically ventilated patients . Today it is not clear if VAP could be an independent risk factor for mortality [6e10], but it is widespread accepted that it increases length of mechanical ventilation  and hospital stay , improving risk for other nosocomial infections and costs  (adding between $40,000 per patient to the hospitalization cost in the USA , accounting more than $50,000 per trauma patient ). "
Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.tacc.2015.10.003
Available from: Timothy L Wiemken
- "We found no difference in resource utilization between patients with MRSA VAP who were treated with linezolid versus vancomycin. The large variability of resource utilization among ICU patients  may explain why our study failed to detect a difference between treatment groups. To develop interventions to control resource utilization and the cost of care among patients with VAP, factors beyond appropriate antibiotic therapy should be explored. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Controversy exists regarding optimal treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The primary objective of this study was to compare clinical success of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of patients with MRSA VAP.
This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with VAP (defined according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria) due to MRSA who were treated with linezolid or vancomycin. MRSA VAP was considered when MRSA was isolated from a tracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage. Clinical success was evaluated by assessing improvement or resolution of signs and symptoms of VAP by day 14. After matching on confounding factors, logistic regression models were used to determine if an association existed between treatment arm and clinical success.
A total of 188 patients were evaluated (101 treated with linezolid and 87 with vancomycin). The mean ± standard deviation Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 21 ± 11 for linezolid- and 19 ± 9 for vancomycin-treated patients (P = 0.041). Clinical success occurred in 85% of linezolid-treated patients compared with 69% of vancomycin-treated patients (P = 0.009). After adjusting for confounding factors, linezolid-treated patients were 24% more likely to experience clinical success than vancomycin-treated patients (P = 0.018).
This study adds to the evidence indicating that patients with MRSA VAP who are treated with linezolid are more likely to respond favorably compared with patients treated with vancomycin.
Critical care (London, England) 06/2014; 18(3):R118. DOI:10.1186/cc13914 · 4.48 Impact Factor
Available from: PubMed Central
- "Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common type of nosocomial pneumonia, as well as one common complication and cause of death of patients with mechanical ventilation in intensive care medicine (ICU).1,2 The established artificial airway damaged the normal respiratory anatomy function, resulting in a high incidence of VAP in mechanical ventilated patients.3-6 VAP is related with many factors, including original diseases and invasive medical procedures. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare different nasal cavity nursing methods on mechanically ventilated patients.
Methods: According to acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHEII), 615 cases of mechanically ventilated patients were divided into group A, group B and group C by stratified random method. Traditional oral nursing plus aspirating secretions from oral cavity and nasal cavity q6h were done in group A. Based on methods in group A, normal saline was used for cleaning nasal cavity in group B. Besides the methods in group A, atomizing nasal cleansing a6h was also used in group C. Incidence rate of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) and APACHE II scores after administrating were compared. The correlation between APACHE II score and outcomes was analyzed by Spearman-rank correlation.
Results: In group A, incidence of VAP was 36.76%, group B was 30.24%, group C was 20.38%, and the difference was statistically significant. APACHE II scores in group C were significantly lower compared with group A and B. APACHE II score was negatively correlated with clinical outcomes.
Conclusions: For mechanically ventilated patients, nasal nursing can’t be ignored and the new atomizing nasal cleaning is an effective method for VAP prevention.
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Online 07/2013; 29(4):977-81. DOI:10.12669/pjms.294.3636 · 0.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.