首页> 外文期刊>BMC Pulmonary Medicine >A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study
【24h】

A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study

机译:诊断算法和临床参数的比较诊断呼吸机相关的肺炎:一种预期观察研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Suspicion and clinical criteria continue to serve as the foundation for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) diagnosis, however the criteria used to diagnose VAP vary widely. Data from head-to-head comparisons of clinical diagnostic algorithms is lacking, thus a prospective observational study was performed to determine the performance characteristics of the Johanson criteria, Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC/NHSN) criteria as compared to Hospital in Europe Link for Infection Control through Surveillance (HELICS) reference standard. A prospective observational cohort study was performed in three mixed medical-surgical ICUs from one academic medical center from 1 October 2016 to 30 April 2018. VAP diagnostic criteria were applied to each patient including CDC/NHSN, CPIS, HELICS and Johanson criteria. Tracheal aspirate cultures (TAC) and serum procalcitonin values were obtained for each patient. Eighty-five patients were enrolled (VAP 45, controls 40). Using HELICS as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity for each of the assessed diagnostic algorithms were: CDC/NHSN (Sensitivity 54.2%; Specificity 100%), CPIS (Sensitivity 68.75%; Specificity 95.23%), Johanson (Sensitivity 67.69%; Specificity 95%). The positive TAC rate was 81.2%. The sensitivity for positive TAC with the serum procalcitonin level??0.5?ng/ml was 51.8%. VAP remains a considerable source of morbidity and mortality in modern intensive care units. The optimal diagnostic method remains unclear. Using HELICS criteria as the reference standard, CPIS had the greatest comparative diagnostic accuracy, whereas the sensitivity of the CDC/NHSN was only marginally better than a positive TAC plus serum procalcitonin??0.5?ng/ml. Algorithm accuracy was improved by adding serum procalcitonin??0.5?ng/ml, but not positive quantitative TAC. Trial Registration: Not indicated for this study type.
机译:怀疑和临床标准继续作为呼吸机相关的肺炎(VAP)诊断的基础,但用于诊断VAP的标准很大。来自临床诊断算法的头部到头比较的数据缺乏,因此进行了预期的观察研究以确定约翰逊标准,临床肺部感染评分(CPI)的性能特征,以及疾病控制和预防的国家医疗保健安全的中心与欧洲医院相比,网络(CDC / NHSN)标准通过监控(螺旋)参考标准的感染控制。从2016年10月1日至2018年4月30日,从一个学术医疗中心进行了一个预期的观察队员研究。VAP诊断标准适用于包括CDC / NHSN,CPI,CPI,CPI,螺旋和Johanson标准的每位患者。为每位患者获得气管吸汗培养物(TAC)和血清proCalcitonin值。注册了八十五名患者(VAP 45,对照40)。使用螺旋作为参考标准,评估诊断算法的敏感性和特异性是:CDC / NHSN(灵敏度54.2%;特异性100%),CPI(敏感度68.75%;特异性95.23%),约翰逊(敏感度67.69%;特异性95%)。阳性TAC率为81.2%。对血清ProCalcitonin水平的阳性Tac的敏感性Δδ0.5≤ng/ ml为51.8%。 VAP在现代化重症监护单位中仍然是一个相当大的发病和死亡率。最佳诊断方法尚不清楚。使用螺旋标准作为参考标准,CPI具有最大的比较诊断准确性,而CDC / NHSN的敏感性仅优于阳性TAC加血清ProCalcitonin?0.5≤ng/ ml。通过添加血清ProCalcitonin改善算法精度α&?0.5≤ng/ ml,但不是阳性定量Tac。试验登记:本研究类型未指示。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号