4.6 Article

Incidence and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia after major heart surgery

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 1518-1525

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1523-3

Keywords

Ventilator-associated; pneumonia; Heart surgery; Nosocomial infection; Nosocomial pneumonia; Risk factors for ICU nosocomial infection

Funding

  1. Spanish Social Security Health Investigation Fund [CB06/06/0058]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  3. REIPI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Major heart surgery (MHS) patients are a particularly high-risk population for nosocomial infections. Our objective was to identify risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients undergoing MHS. Methods: Prospective study including 1,844 patients operated from 2003 to 2006. Results: Overall 106 patients (140 episodes) developed one or more episodes of VAP (5.7%, 22.2 episodes per 1,000 days of mechanical ventilation). VAP incidence was 45.9% in those patients requiring more than 48 h of MV. Enterobacteriaceae (32.8), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (28.6%) and Staphylococcus aureus (27.1%, of which 65.8% were methicillin resistant) were the principal microorganisms causing VAP. The independent risk factors for VAP were: age >70, perioperative transfusions, days of mechanical ventilation, reintubation, previous cardiac surgery, emergent surgery and intraoperative inotropic support. Median length of stay in the ICU for patients who developed VAP or not was, respectively, 25.5 versus 3 days (P < 0.001), and mortality was, respectively, 45.7 versus 2.8% in both populations (P < 0.001). We developed a predictive preoperative score with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 40%. Conclusions: VAP is common in patients undergoing MHS that require more than 48 h of MV. In that high-risk population, innovative preventive measures should be developed and applied.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available