Nascimento Giovanna Marssola, Rodrigues Daniela Laranja Gomes, Piastrelli Filipe Teixeira, Cheno Maysa Yukari, Braz Katia Cristina Camondá, Alves Lucas Bassolli de Oliveira, Tomazini Bruno Martins, Veiga Viviane Cordeiro, Arns Beatriz, Besen Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro, Junior Antonio Paulo Nassar, Avezum Alvaro, da Silva Renata Karoline Lima, de Azevedo Conceição de Maria Pedrozo E Silva, Silva Maria Luiza Santana de Oliveira, Kist Graziela Regina, Salgado Fernanda Borges, de Moura Maria Tereza Farias, Boschi Emerson, Kurtz Pedro Martins Pereira, Miraglia Eva Regina Valadares da Silva, de Lima Thawani Andrade, Pereira René Rodrigues, Arraes Jussara Alencar, Alves de Oliveira Junior Haliton
Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, Responsabilidade Social, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Hospital do Coração, Instituto de Pesquisa, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Braz J Infect Dis. 2025 May 21;29(4):104543. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2025.104543.
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is a critical healthcare-associated infection, but no universal surveillance standard exists. In 2013, the CDC revised its criteria, incorporating Ventilator-Associated Events (VAEs) with VAPs as a subset. In Brazil, however, the Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) chose to retain the traditional VAP criteria. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of VAP using both the traditional and revised criteria.
We conducted a prospective multicentric cohort of critically ill adult patients who required mechanical ventilation in 12 Brazilian Intensive Care Units (ICU) over six months. We evaluated the level of agreement between the two criteria considering frequency and kappa coefficient. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05589727.
The study included 987 patients and revealed that 85.7 % of VAP reported by the centers according to ANVISA criteria were not confirmed by the adjudicators. Among the adjudicators, a 16.7 % disagreement (kappa = 0.32) suggested subjectivity in applying VAP criteria. Between the two sets of criteria, an 11% disagreement (kappa = 0.12) was observed. However, manual adjudication of automatically generated VAEs showed only a 4 % disagreement, indicating greater objectivity in the VAE criteria. Despite the high agreement in VAE adjudication, this did not necessarily translate to a more reliable exclusion of non-events, which is essential for accurate surveillance.
The findings highlight the challenges in identifying and classifying VAP, emphasizing the need for improved surveillance methods. The results could inform enhancements in VAP monitoring in Brazil and potentially impact other countries using similar criteria.
呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)是一种严重的医疗相关感染,但目前尚无通用的监测标准。2013年,美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)修订了其标准,将呼吸机相关事件(VAE)纳入其中,VAP是VAE的一个子集。然而,在巴西,卫生监管机构(ANVISA)选择保留传统的VAP标准。本研究旨在使用传统标准和修订后的标准评估VAP的发病率。
我们对巴西12个重症监护病房(ICU)中需要机械通气的成年重症患者进行了一项为期6个月的前瞻性多中心队列研究。我们从频率和kappa系数两方面评估了两种标准之间的一致性水平。本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册,注册号为NCT05589727。
该研究纳入了987名患者,结果显示,各中心根据ANVISA标准报告的VAP中,有85.7%未得到评审人员的确认。在评审人员中,16.7%的意见不一致(kappa = 0.32),这表明在应用VAP标准时存在主观性。在两组标准之间,观察到11%的意见不一致(kappa = 0.12)。然而,对自动生成的VAE进行人工判定时,意见不一致率仅为4%,这表明VAE标准具有更高的客观性。尽管在VAE判定方面一致性较高,但这并不一定意味着能更可靠地排除非事件,而这对于准确监测至关重要。
研究结果凸显了识别和分类VAP的挑战,强调了改进监测方法的必要性。这些结果可为巴西VAP监测的改进提供参考,并可能对使用类似标准的其他国家产生影响。