Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ippolito M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8150614 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The accuracy of the signs and tests that clinicians use to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and initiate antibiotic treatment has not been well characterized. We sought to characterize and compare the accuracy of physical examination, chest radiography, endotracheal aspirate (ETA), bronchoscopic sampling cultures (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL]), and CPIS?>?6 to diagnose VAP. We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected English-language studies investigating accuracy of any of the above tests for VAP diagnosis. Reference standard was histopathological analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We included 25 studies (1639 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for VAP were poor: fever (66.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.7-85.0], 53.9% [95% CI 34.5-72.2]) and purulent secretions (77.0% [95% CI 64.7-85.9], 39.0% [95% CI 25.8-54.0]). Any infiltrate on chest radiography had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9-95.8) and specificity of 26.1% (95% CI 15.1-41.4). ETA had a sensitivity of 75.7% (95% CI 51.5-90.1) and specificity of 67.9% (95% CI 40.5-86.8). Among bronchoscopic sampling methods, PSB had a sensitivity of 61.4% [95% CI 43.7-76.5] and specificity of 76.5% [95% CI 64.2-85.6]; while BAL had a sensitivity of 71.1% [95% CI 49.9-85.9] and specificity of 79.6% [95% CI 66.2-85.9]. CPIS?>?6 had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 50.6-88.5) and specificity of 66.4% (95% CI 43.9-83.3). Classic clinical indicators had poor accuracy for diagnosis of VAP. Reliance upon these indicators in isolation may result in misdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary antimicrobial use.
| S-EPMC7223448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID pneumonitis can cause patients to become critically ill. They may require intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a concern. This review discusses VAP in this group. Several reasons have been proposed to explain the elevated rates of VAP in critically ill COVID patients compared to non-COVID patients. Extrinsic factors include understaffing, lack of personal protective equipment and use of immunomodulating agents. Intrinsic factors include severe parenchymal damage and immune dysregulation, along with pulmonary vascular endothelial inflammation and thrombosis. The rate of VAP has been reported at 45.4%, with an intensive care unit mortality rate of 42.7%. Multiple challenges to diagnosis exist. Other conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary oedema and atelectasis can present with similar features. Frequent growth of gram-negative bacteria has been shown in multiple studies, with particularly high rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The rate of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis has been reported at 4-30%. We would recommend the use of invasive techniques when possible. This will enable de-escalation of antibiotics as soon as possible, decreasing overuse. It is also important to keep other possible causes of VAP in mind, e.g. COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis or cytomegalovirus. Diagnostic tests such as galactomannan and β-D-glucan should be considered. These patients may face a long treatment course, with risk of re-infection, along with prolonged weaning, which carries its own long-term consequences.
| S-EPMC9080287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPandemic COVID-19 caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has a high incidence of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Many of these patients require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive ventilation and are at significant risk of developing a secondary, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).ObjectivesTo study the incidence of VAP and bacterial lung microbiome composition of ventilated COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we compared the incidence of VAP and secondary infections using a combination of microbial culture and a TaqMan multi-pathogen array. In addition, we determined the lung microbiome composition using 16S RNA analysis in a subset of samples. The study involved 81 COVID-19 and 144 non-COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation in a single University teaching hospital between March 15th 2020 and August 30th 2020.ResultsCOVID-19 patients were significantly more likely to develop VAP than patients without COVID (Cox proportional hazard ratio 2.01 95% CI 1.14-3.54, p = 0.0015) with an incidence density of 28/1000 ventilator days versus 13/1000 for patients without COVID (p = 0.009). Although the distribution of organisms causing VAP was similar between the two groups, and the pulmonary microbiome was similar, we identified 3 cases of invasive aspergillosis amongst the patients with COVID-19 but none in the non-COVID-19 cohort. Herpesvirade activation was also numerically more frequent amongst patients with COVID-19.ConclusionCOVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of VAP, which is not fully explained by the prolonged duration of ventilation. The pulmonary dysbiosis caused by COVID-19, and the causative organisms of secondary pneumonia observed are similar to that seen in critically ill patients ventilated for other reasons.
| S-EPMC7797892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently, emerging evidence has suggested that atrial fibrillation (AF) has an epidemiological correlation with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical outcomes of AF in COVID-19 remain inconsistent and inconclusive. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive description of the impact of AF on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThree electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies as of March 1, 2021. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations between AF (preexisting and new-onset) and in-hospital mortality, post-discharge mortality, and ventilator use.ResultsA total of 36 individual studies were incorporated into our meta-analysis. The combined results revealed that preexisting AF was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (pooled OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.60-2.67; p < 0.001), post-discharge mortality (pooled OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.24-5.83; p < 0.05), and ventilator utilization (pooled OR: 4.53; 95% CI: 1.33-15.38; p < 0.05) in patients with COVID-19. In addition, our data demonstrated that new-onset AF during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was significantly correlated with increased mortality (pooled OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 2.04-2.77; p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe presence of AF is correlated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, which deserves increased attention and should be managed appropriately to prevent adverse outcomes.
| S-EPMC8483996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData to date is far from sufficient to describe the recent epidemiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mainland China. This study aimed to estimate the overall incidence of VAP, with a special focus on its temporal trend and associated factors.MethodsMeta-analyses of 195 studies published from 2010 to 2015 were conducted, followed by subgroup analyses by methodological quality, pre-defined setting characteristics and attributes of populations.ResultsThe overall cumulative VAP incidence in mainland China was 23.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 20.6-27.2%), with the results showing high heterogeneity. The pooled incidence densities were 24.14 (95% CI 21.19-27.51) episodes and 22.83 (95% CI 19.88-26.23) patients per 1000 ventilator-days. A decline in the cumulative incidence was observed from 2006 (49.5%, 95% CI 40.0-59.0%) to 2014 (19.6%, 95% CI 10.4-31.0%); differences in the incidence rates were also documented according to Chinese provinces and diagnostic criteria (p < 0.001). Older age (?60 years), coma, re-intubation, tracheotomy and prolonged ventilation were the factors significantly associated with the occurrence of VAP.ConclusionsThe incidence of VAP remains high in mainland China but has decreased since 2006. The reported rates vary considerably across individual studies, probably due to variations in diagnosis and geographical region. More studies using standard definitions and cut-off points are needed to better clarify the epidemiology of VAP across the country.
| S-EPMC5496595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is considered to be a worldwide issue along with the development of supportive ventilation. The preventing strategy is of great importance for its poor prognostic and difficulties in treatment. Probiotics have been advocated as one of the possible preventive measures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the potential benefits of probiotics.MethodsThe databases, Web of science, PubMed, Ovid and Cochrane lib were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications that compared the effectiveness of probiotics with placebo in the prevention of VAP. The incidence of VAP was considered as the primary endpoint, mortality, length of stay in intensive care units (ICUs), etiology of the infections were considered as secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 844 patients from 5 trials were subjected to meta-analysis. Probiotics did not significantly decrease the incidence of VAP (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.85-1.04, p=0.22), however, the administration of probiotics reduced the risk of VAP caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.11-0.91, P=0.03). It failed to affect any other endpoints.ConclusionProbiotic prophylaxis of ventilator-associated pneumonia remained inconclusive and it failed to improve the prognosis of general mechanically ventilated patients. It was noteworthy that infections caused by P. aeruginosa was reduced by administration of probiotics. In further, it is recommended that advanced studies should exploit transformation in pathogenic microorganisms owing to administration of probiotics as well as the specific population.
| S-EPMC3867481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity has been widely reported to be associated with the disease progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, some studies have reported different findings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between obesity and poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from 1 November 2019 to 24 May 2020 was performed. Study quality was assessed, and data extraction was conducted. The meta-analysis was carried out using fixed-effects and random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs) of several poor outcomes in obese and non-obese COVID-19 patients.ResultsTwenty-two studies (n = 12,591 patients) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that body mass index (BMI) was higher in severe/critical COVID-19 patients than in mild COVID-19 patients (MD 2.48 kg/m2, 95% CI [2.00 to 2.96 kg/m2]). Additionally, obesity in COVID-19 patients was associated with poor outcomes (OR = 1.683, 95% CI [1.408-2.011]), which comprised severe COVID-19, ICU care, invasive mechanical ventilation use, and disease progression (OR = 4.17, 95% CI [2.32-7.48]; OR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.18-2.09]; OR = 2.13, 95% CI [1.10-4.14]; OR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.26-1.58], respectively). Obesity as a risk factor was greater in younger patients (OR 3.30 vs. 1.72). However, obesity did not increase the risk of hospital mortality (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.32-2.51]).ConclusionsAs a result of a potentially critical role of obesity in determining the severity of COVID-19, it is important to collect anthropometric information for COVID-19 patients, especially the younger group. However, obesity may not be associated with hospital mortality, and efforts to understand the impact of obesity on the mortality of COVID-19 patients should be a research priority in the future.
| S-EPMC7708895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review, with meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to evaluate the effect of colchicine administration on mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and factors affecting the association.MethodsA systematic literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were performed from inception of databases up until 3 March 2021. We included studies that fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report COVID-19 patients, 2) reporting colchicine use, and 3) mortality within 30 days. There was no restriction on the age, inpatients or outpatients setting, and severity of diseases. The intervention was colchicine administration during treatment for COVID-19. The control was receiving placebo or standard of care. The outcome was mortality and the pooled effect estimate was reported as odds ratio (OR). Random-effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression was performed to evaluate factors affecting the pooled effect estimate.ResultsEight studies comprising of 5530 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There were three RCTs and five observational studies. Pooled analysis showed that colchicine was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.47 [0.31, 0.72], p = 0.001; I2: 30.9, p = 0.181). Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between colchicine and mortality was reduced by increasing age (OR 0.92 [0.85, 1.00], p = 0.05), but not gender (reference: male, p = 0.999), diabetes (p = 0.376), hypertension (p = 0.133), and CAD (p = 0.354).ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that colchicine may reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19. Meta-regression analysis showed that the benefit was reduced as age increases.ProsperoCRD42021240609.
| S-EPMC8075849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleEarly corticosteroid treatment is used to treat COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Infection is a well-documented adverse effect of corticosteroid therapy.ObjectivesTo determine whether early corticosteroid therapy to treat COVID-19 ARDS was associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).MethodsWe retrospectively included adults with COVID-19-ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) for ≥ 48 h at any of 15 intensive care units in 2020. We divided the patients into two groups based on whether they did or did not receive corticosteroids within 24 h. The primary outcome was VAP incidence, with death and extubation as competing events. Secondary outcomes were day 90-mortality, MV duration, other organ dysfunctions, and VAP characteristics.Measurements and main resultsOf 670 patients (mean age, 65 years), 369 did and 301 did not receive early corticosteroids. The cumulative VAP incidence was higher with early corticosteroids (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.29; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.05-1.58; P = 0.016). Antibiotic resistance of VAP bacteria was not different between the two groups (odds ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53; P = 0.81). 90-day mortality was 30.9% with and 24.3% without early corticosteroids, a nonsignificant difference after adjustment on age, SOFA score, and VAP occurrence (aHR 1.15; 95% CI 0.83-1.60; P = 0.411). VAP was associated with higher 90-day mortality (aHR 1.86; 95% CI 1.33-2.61; P = 0.0003).ConclusionsEarly corticosteroid treatment was associated with VAP in patients with COVID-19-ARDS. Although VAP was associated with higher 90-day mortality, early corticosteroid treatment was not. Longitudinal randomized controlled trials of early corticosteroids in COVID-19-ARDS requiring MV are warranted.
| S-EPMC9344449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Aerosolized antibiotics have been proposed as a novel and promising treatment option for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). However, the optimum aerosolized antibiotics for VAP remain uncertain. METHODS:We included studies from two systematic reviews and searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for other studies. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Extracted data were analyzed by pairwise and network meta-analysis. RESULTS:Eight observational and eight randomized studies were identified for this analysis. By pairwise meta-analysis using intravenous antibiotics as the reference, patients treated with aerosolized antibiotics were associated with significantly higher rates of clinical recovery (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.34; P?=?0.001) and microbiological eradication (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22-1.650; P?<?0.0001). There were no significant differences in the risks of mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.04; P?=?0.127) or nephrotoxicity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72-1.39; P?=?0.995). Using network meta-analysis, clinical recovery benefits were seen only with aerosolized tobramycin and colistin (especially tobramycin), and microbiological eradication benefits were seen only with colistin. Aerosolized tobramycin was also associated with significantly lower mortality when compared with aerosolized amikacin and colistin and intravenous antibiotics. The assessment of rank probabilities indicated aerosolized tobramycin presented the greatest likelihood of having benefits for clinical recovery and mortality, and aerosolized colistin presented the best benefits for microbiological eradication. CONCLUSIONS:Aerosolized antibiotics appear to be a useful treatment for VAP with respect to clinical recovery and microbiological eradication, and do not increase mortality or nephrotoxicity risks. Our network meta-analysis in patients with VAP suggests that clinical recovery benefits are associated with aerosolized tobramycin and colistin (especially tobramycin), microbiological eradication with aerosolized colistin, and survival with aerosolized tobramycin, mostly based on observational studies. Due to the low levels of evidence, definitive recommendations cannot be made before additional, large randomized studies are carried out.
| S-EPMC6238320 | biostudies-other