Quick Jacob A, Breite Matthew D, Barnes Stephen L
Am Surg. 2018 Feb 1;84(2):300-304.
Clinical utility of algorithms to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in surgical patients has not been established. We aimed to test the diagnostic accuracy of two established methods to reliably diagnose VAP in acutely ill and injured surgical patients. After institutional review board approval, we prospectively collected data on 508 mechanically ventilated acute care surgery patients. Microbiologic samples were taken daily from all patients. Demographics, clinical, laboratory, and radiographic data were collected. The Johanson Criteria (JC) and Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) were calculated and analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated in comparison to positive respiratory cultures. Of the 508 patients, 312 (61.4%) were acutely injured; emergent general surgery was performed in 141 (27.8%) patients, and 54 (10.6%) underwent elective operation. Positive respiratory cultures were identified in 198 (39%) of the 508 patients. JC diagnosed VAP in 291 (57.3%) patients (sensitivity 82.8%, specificity 59%, PPV 56.4%, NPV 84.3%, accuracy 68.3%). The CPIS resulted in 189 (37.2%) VAP diagnoses (sensitivity 61.1%, specificity 78.1%, PPV 64%, NPV 75.9%, and accuracy 71.5%). To address the inaccuracy of the algorithms, concordance testing was performed on the data to evaluate correlation between the algorithmic VAP diagnosis criteria and respiratory culture data. Nonconcordance with culture data diagnosis was identified with both JC (rho 0.41) and CPIS (rho 0.41). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, and accuracy of both established clinical formulas was unacceptably low in acute care surgery patients.
用于诊断外科患者呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的算法的临床实用性尚未得到证实。我们旨在测试两种既定方法在急性病和受伤外科患者中可靠诊断VAP的诊断准确性。经机构审查委员会批准后,我们前瞻性收集了508例机械通气的急性护理手术患者的数据。每天从所有患者采集微生物样本。收集人口统计学、临床、实验室和影像学数据。计算并分析约翰森标准(JC)和临床肺部感染评分(CPIS)。与阳性呼吸道培养结果相比,计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。在508例患者中,312例(61.4%)为急性受伤;141例(27.8%)患者接受了急诊普通外科手术,54例(10.6%)接受了择期手术。508例患者中有198例(39%)呼吸道培养结果呈阳性。JC诊断出291例(57.3%)VAP患者(敏感性82.8%,特异性59%,PPV 56.4%,NPV 84.3%,准确性68.3%)。CPIS诊断出189例(37.2%)VAP患者(敏感性61.1%,特异性78.1%,PPV 64%,NPV 75.9%,准确性71.5%)。为解决算法的不准确性问题,对数据进行了一致性测试,以评估算法VAP诊断标准与呼吸道培养数据之间的相关性。JC(rho 0.41)和CPIS(rho 0.41)均发现与培养数据诊断不一致。在急性护理手术患者中,两种既定临床公式的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV以及准确性均低得令人无法接受。