Heart & Lung xxx (2015) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heart & Lung journal homepage: www.heartandlung.org

Ventilator-associated events prevention, learning lessons from the past: A systematic review Jad Chahoud, MD a, Adele Semaan, MPH b, Khalid F. Almoosa, MD, MS, FCCP a, c, * a

Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA c Transplant Surgery ICU, Memorial Hermann Hospital TMC, Houston, TX, USA b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 28 August 2014 Received in revised form 16 January 2015 Accepted 20 January 2015 Available online xxx

Background: Preventing Ventilator-associated events (VAE) is a major challenge. Strictly monitoring for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is not sufficient to ensure positive outcomes. Therefore, the surveillance definition was updated and a change to the broader VAE was advocated. Objective: This paper summarizes the scientific efforts assessing VAP preventive bundles and the recent transition in surveillance methods. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify lessons from past clinical studies assessing VAP prevention bundles. We then performed a thorough literature review on the recent VAE surveillance algorithm, highlighting its advantages and limitations. Conclusion: VAP prevention bundles have historically proven their efficacy and the introduction of the new VAE definition aimed at refining and objectivizing surveillance methods. Randomized controlled trials remain vital to determine the effect of VAE prevention on patient outcomes. We recommend expanding beyond limited VAP prevention strategies towards VAE prevention bundles. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ventilator-associated pneumonia Ventilator-associated Events Prevention Bundles Surveillance Critical care

Introduction Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is prominent in intensive care units worldwide. In the United States, VAP accounts for approximately 300,000 cases of ICU acquired infections per year.1 VAP is not only the most common hospital-acquired infection in ICUs, it is also associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and economical burden on the health care system.2e8 The impact of VAP on mortality has always been controversial due to limitations in most of the previous studies. Small sample sizes, inability to perform relevant subgroup analyses and the

Abbreviations: VAE, ventilator-associated events; ICU, intensive care unit; VAP, ventilator-associated pneumonia; CDC, centers for disease control; LOS, length of stay; IHI, Institute of Healthcare Improvement; HOB, head of bed; PUD, peptic ulcer disease; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health; IVAC, infection-related ventilator-associated complications; NHSN, National Healthcare Safety Network; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; FIO2, fraction of inspired oxygen; ATS, American Thoracic Society; IDSA, Infectious Diseases Society of America. * Corresponding author. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 1.134, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Tel.: þ1 713 500 6839; fax: þ1 713 500 6829. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.F. Almoosa). 0147-9563/$ e see front matter Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.01.010

presence of several confounding factors, have hampered a reliable measurement of VAP-attributable mortality rates. In the literature, a wide range of estimates was reported for VAP-attributable mortality rates ranging between 20 and 55%. A recent meta-analysis, published by Melhsen et al (2013) used original individual patient data from published randomized trials on VAP prevention. With a total sample size of 6284 patients from 24 trials, the reported overall VAP-attributable mortality was 13%.9 Acquiring VAP is also associated with increased ICU length of stay (LOS). In fact, studies have shown an increase in ICU LOS ranging from 4.3 to 13 days, with an average of a 6-day increase attributable to VAP.10e13 This ultimately led to increasing the cost of each hospital admission associated with a diagnosis of VAP by more than $40,000.14e16 VAP is the hospital acquired infection with the highest economic impact per episode. With an added cost per episode of more than twice that of a central line-associated bloodstream infection and ten times that of an episode of catheter-associated urinary tract or Clostridium Difficile infection.17 During the first week of mechanical ventilation, patients are at highest risk of acquiring VAP with risk rates of approximately 3% per day.18 A potentially growing burden of VAP is to be anticipated in the future, as a consequence of population aging.19 Furthermore, an

2

J. Chahoud et al. / Heart & Lung xxx (2015) 1e9

increase in bacterial resistance is expected as a result of the rise in antimicrobial prescription accompanying VAP.20,21 Considering all the aforementioned reasons, VAP prevention in mechanically ventilated patients must be regarded as a critical mission. Therefore, a vital need arises to establish a multi-dimensional strategy for VAP prevention. The components of such strategy would combine continuous staff education, VAP prevention bundles and effective surveillance. VAP preventive measures are numerous and some remain controversial.5,17 This manuscript will provide a two-faceted overview on the preventive efforts aiming to improve the quality and safety of the mechanically ventilated population over the last decade. First, we will provide a summary of the studies that incorporated VAP preventive bundles and evaluated their effect on patient outcomes. To this purpose, we will present the results and highlight the most important lessons learned from these past preventive efforts. Second, we will dissect the recently defined 2013 Ventilator-associated Event (VAE) surveillance innovative algorithm and its effects on the way we have historically tried to handle VAP detection and prevention. A thorough review of the most recent literature will be presented to describe the development of the new surveillance definition. This manuscript will culminate by evaluating the current gaps and the possible opportunities for improvement in ventilated patients’ outcomes.

assessed each of the selected studies for eligibility following an unblinded standardized manner. The selection criteria were based on exposure, outcome, population and methodology. Excluded studies did not measure “preventive bundling” as exposure and “VAP rates or mortality rates” as primary outcome. On the other hand, included papers adopted a cohort, prospective, or pre-post observational study design and targeted adult ventilated patients. As such, abstracts, letters to the editor, case reports, reviews, and original studies with less than 20 subjects were excluded. A final list of 22 studies was compiled and included in the systematic review. Fig. 1 is a diagram illustrating the adopted selection process of articles. Data were retrieved by one reviewer (J.C.) and checked for accuracy and completeness by the second reviewer (A.S.), any disagreements were discussed and resolved to reach consensus. The extracted data consisted of three categories; (1) general study information: last name of first author, year of publication, location, scope (single or multicenter), study design, and sample size (number of subjects enrolled or alternatively number of ventilatordays included and cohort size); (2) exposure information: number and type of preventive measures included in the bundle; (3) outcome information (whenever applicable): pre- and postintervention VAP rates, percentage change in VAP rates postintervention, mortality rates, hospital LOS, ICU LOS, number of days on ventilator and/or compliance rates with the VAP bundle.

History of bundling Health care providers have at their disposal an arsenal of tools to prevent VAP, including (a) VAP prevention bundles, (b) health care providers’ education and (c) surveillance programs. These components are seldom organized into one strategic quality and patient safety improvement plan. Usually, bundled preventive measures are the cornerstone of every promising preventive strategy. The concept of bundling in medicine dates back to the day of the northern plains Indians. At that time, Indian medicine bundles composed of a multitude of herbs and other elements that were believed to provide their carrier with the needed strength to prevent disease.22 Nowadays, modern medicine defines bundles as the implementation of various grouped measures which when combined together achieve better outcomes than individually implemented interventions. In order to capture the entirety of the past literature on VAP prevention bundles and their impact on ventilated patients’ outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of relevant databases. The adopted process is described in the following paragraphs.

Results Review of selected original studies Extracted data from the 22 reviewed articles are summarized in Table 1.23e44 All articles were published after 2004, the year IHI had

Methods: search strategy and data extraction We performed a systematic search on Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and CINAHL for original studies examining the clinical outcome of VAP prevention bundle practice on mechanically ventilated patients. The search was limited to English language articles, published from January 2005 to January 2014. The choice of this timeframe was intended to retrieve articles subsequent to the “save a 100,000 lives campaign” launched by the Institute of Healthcare improvement (IHI) and which was the first to introduce the concept of VAP bundling. The subject headings “Pneumonia, Ventilatorassociated” and “Prevention” were entered and explored to retrieve an extensive research resource for review. After removing duplicates, a preliminary screening of the resource list was conducted using the title and/or abstract to identify relevant studies that reported or evaluated the implementation of VAP preventive measures. Additionally, in order to ensure comprehensiveness, the reference lists of identified articles were checked further for related published materials. Two reviewers (J.C. and A.S.) independently

Fig. 1. Strategic search of studies on VAP prevention bundles. This diagram explains the selection process of articles while highlighting the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

J. Chahoud et al. / Heart & Lung xxx (2015) 1e9

launched the “save a 100,000 lives campaign”. The campaign aimed at improving patient safety and outcomes by implementing a prevention bundle, known as the IHI ventilator bundle; and which included four preventive measures (1) head of bed (HOB) elevation above 30 , (2) Daily sedation vacation and readiness to wean assessment, (3) peptic ulcer disease (PUD) prophylaxis, and (4) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis.5,17 Of these reviewed articles, 13 (59%) were conducted in a multicenter setting and 9 studies (41%) in a single institution. Studies were geographically distributed between developed and developing countries, with a majority of the publications (n ¼ 8) in the USA. All the studies, except two, had a retrospective pre- and postintervention observational study design; the multicenter Spanish intervention36 adopted a cohort study design to assess the outcome of VAP prevention bundles and the study by Croce et al applied a prospective observational design, with no pre-intervention control sample.42 The exact number of mechanically ventilated patients or ventilator days was not mentioned in 7 of these articles. The highest number of reported ventilator days was by Berenholtz et al (550,800 ventilator-days) and the largest reported sample of ventilated patients was in the study by Lim et al (27,125 patients).32,39 When assessing the number of elements included in each VAP preventive bundle, our sample of studies had a mean of 5.27 preventive measures. Eleven studies (50%) applied strictly the IHI VAP preventive bundle with its four preventive elements. Two of the reviewed articles, implemented the highest number of preventive measures, with a total of eleven elements.35,40 The type of preventive elements established in each study is detailed in Table 1. All the summarized studies, except for three,24,25,42 monitored and compared the pre- and post-intervention VAP rates. Seventeen of the studies reporting VAP rates (17/19; 89.47%) demonstrated a significant decrease after initiating the VAP bundle independently of the number of preventive measures. Only two studies26,43 did not report a significant decrease in VAP rates post-intervention, and had respectively 5 and 4 preventive measures in their bundles. Overall compliance with the bundle elements was measured, and the conducted trials reported an improvement in all the centers with rates as high as 95e100%.23,28 Even the trial that reported the lowest compliance, with rates below 30%, still had a significant reduction of VAP rates in the five study centers.36 Interestingly, none of the studies showed a significant improvement in ventilated patients’ mortality rates, except for one small pre-post observational study reporting around 50% decrease in morality.24 A significant decrease in ICU LOS as well as the number of days on mechanical ventilator was noticed in all the studies reporting those outcomes with the exception of one study which demonstrated only a significant decrease in ICU LOS without reporting a significant decrease in ventilator days.29 Limitations of reviewed studies The appropriate interpretation of quality improvement strategies relies on the ability to measure their effects. VAP prevention efforts are restricted by many limitations, the first being the lack of sensitivity and specificity of the VAP diagnostic criteria. This is considered a significant challenge that was addressed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) working group, in an effort that led to the development of the new innovative VAE definition. The second limitation is the retrospective pre- and post-intervention observational design of all the studies except two. Additionally, the use of a non-randomized design to compare historical control increases selection bias. The third limitation is a low external validity of some results, as eight of the reviewed studies were single-centered.

3

Moreover, most of the studies did not include a power analysis for their sample size nor did they compare the basic patient characteristics in their pre- and post-intervention samples. The fourth and final limitation found in the majority of the studies, is that patient outcomes indicators (i.e. mortality, LOS in ICU, or number of days on the ventilator) were not the primary endpoints. Instead, all the efforts were targeted towards demonstrating a reduction of VAP rates as a primary endpoint of implementing the preventive bundle. Discussion The primary objective of VAP prevention efforts goes beyond the simple reduction of VAP cases, towards improving ventilated patients’ overall outcomes. In the current era of health care change, VAE surveillance algorithm was introduced to detect a broader spectrum of complications not limited solely to pneumonia. Thus, the discussion of this literature focuses on analyzing the current limitations of studies to optimize future clinical trials. In addition, it utilizes the evidence collected over the years on developing and applying VAP bundles to be incorporated in the creation of VAE bundles. The above-reviewed VAP prevention publications (Table 1) identify a need to establish multi-center randomized clinical trials aiming to measure patients’ outcomes at a primary endpoint and the surveillance process at a secondary endpoint. Furthermore, applying the new VAE definition for surveillance would eliminate the problematic VAP diagnostic criteria of low sensitivity and specificity. As for the creation and implementation of VAE-specific preventive bundles, it will be examined further in the following paragraphs. A number of important lessons may be learned from previous VAP bundle studies to try and optimize the VAE bundles: (a) using evidence-based bundle elements; (b) considering the local resources capacity when choosing the bundle elements; (c) adopting a team-based approach to help increase the adherence of the nursing and respiratory teams with the bundle; (d) keeping in mind that increasing the compliance with the elements is more efficacious than increasing the number of elements; (e) establishing a comprehensive implementation process combining a continuous education program, process and outcome evaluation and regular staff feedback and performance improvement sessions; and finally (f) setting realistic goals with scheduled reevaluations. Until recently VAP was the only quality indicator used for mechanically ventilated patients. However, this specific population is at jeopardy for multiple other preventable diseases, undetected by the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) VAP surveillance. This was one of the reasons to consider the need for change in the ventilated patients’ surveillance strategies. Furthermore, three other key issues have always hindered VAP surveillance, rendering reported VAP data heterogenous among centers. First, a gold standard for VAP diagnosis was absent. Second, the NHSN pneumonia definition, the most commonly used in VAP surveillance, was not specifically designed for this purpose and was last updated more than ten years ago. Third, the three parameters used for the NHSN pneumonia diagnostic definition, lacked in sensitivity and specificity. These three parameters are (a) new or progressive chest radiographic consolidation, (b) clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of pneumonia and (c) laboratory results. More specifically, diagnostic criteria (a) and (b) could cause a delay in determining the exact diagnosis and produce an elevated number of both false-positive and false-negative VAP diagnoses. Moreover, since both criteria (a) and (b) are usually prone to interspecialist interpretational variability, they reflect in inter-facility heterogenous comparisons. Eventually, this non-homogeneity

Author (year) 1 Resar (2005)

Location 23

Design

Sample

Na Preventive measures

Resultsc b

Pre-post observational

NA

4 IHI ventilator bundle

Pre-post observational

NA

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

3 Crunden (2005)25

Single center UK

Pre-post observational

658 patients

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

4 Abbott (2006)26

Multicenter USA

Pre-post observational

106 patients

5 Hatler (2006)27

Single center USA

Pre-post observational

NA

6 Youngquist (2007)28

Multicenter USA

Pre-post observational

429 patients

5 1 HOB elevation 30 ; 2 Oral care; 3 Hand hygiene; 4 Glove use; 5 Change/empty condensation in tubing 6 (1e4) IHI ventilator bundleb; 5 Oral care Q2H; 6 Turning Q2H 6 (1e4) IHI ventilator bundleb 5 Oral care; 6 Hand hygiene

8 Al-Tawfiq (2010)30 Single center Saudi Arabia 9 Bird (2010)31 Single center USA 10 Berenholtz et al Multicenter 32 (2011) USA

Pre-post observational

NA

HOB elevation 30 ; Oral care with chlorhexidine; Hand hygiene; Glove use; Tracheal cuff pressure maintenance > 20 cm H2O; 6 Use of orogastric tubes; 7 Avoidance of gastric overdistension; 8 Elimination of nonessential tracheal suction 4 IHI ventilator bundleb

Pre-post observational

NA

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

Pre-post observational

550,800 ventilator-days

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

11 Morris (2011)33

Single center Scotland

Pre-post observational

NA

12 Gallagher (2012)34

Single center USA

Pre-post observational

83 patients

3 1 HOB elevation 30 ; 2 Oral care; 3 Daily sedation vacation and readiness to wean assessment 7 1 HOB elevation 30 ; 2 Oral care; 3 Hand hygiene; 4 Condensation in ventilator tubing checked; 5 Daily assessment of readiness to wean; 6 DVT prophylaxis; 7 PUD prophylaxis;

7 Bouadama (2010)29

Single center Pre-post observational France (20 bed ICU)

1649 ventilator-days

8 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2

VAP rates significant Y 6.6e2.7 Compliance [ to 95% Average ventilation days significant Y 6.1e3.5 ICU LOS Y 4e3.4 days Mortality rate Y by >50% Mean ventilation days Y 10.8e6.1 ICU LOS Y 13.75e8.36 days Mortality rate unchanged Compliance rates of 79.1% VAP rates at center II Y 31e20 (non-significant) ICU LOS Y at both centers causing cost savings

1 2 3 1

54% significant Y in VAP rates 18% Y in mean LOS Estimated cost savings of 1.0e2.3 Million USD VAP rate: Center (1) significant Y 6.1e2.7; center (2) from 2.66e0 ICU LOS: Center (2) (p ¼ 0.02); center (1) not statistically significant Compliance rate: 100% VAP rates significant Y 22.6e13.1 (43% reduction) No significant difference between the baseline and the intervention period for the duration of mechanical ventilation or the ICU and hospital death rates ICU LOS was significantly shorter during the intervention compared with the baseline

2 3 1 2

3

VAP rates Y from a mean of 9.3e2.2 Overall compliance [ 20e82% VAP rates significant Y 10.2e3.4 Overall compliance [ 53e91% VAP rates significant Y from 6.9 baseline cases to 3.4 after 16e18 months and 2.4 after 28e30 months 2 Compliance [ from 32% at baseline to 75% after 16e18 months and 84% after 28e30 months 1 VAP rates significant Y 32e12 2 Compliance rates with overall bundle elements of 70% 1 2 1 2 1

VAP rates significant Y 25.5e0

J. Chahoud et al. / Heart & Lung xxx (2015) 1e9

Multicenter USA, Canada Single center USA

2 Hampton (2005)24

4

Table 1 Description of individual studies between 2005 and 2014 that implemented VAP preventive bundle and were included in the review.

518 patients

HOB elevation 30 Oral care Daily sedation vacation and readiness to wean assessment Noninvasive ventilation use and duration minimization Use of orotracheal intubation Maintenance of endotracheal cuff pressure of 20-cm H2O 7 Removal of the condensate from ventilator circuits 8 Change of the ventilator circuit only when visibly soiled or malfunctioning 9 Avoidance of gastric overdistension 10 Avoidance of histamine receptor 2, (H)eblocking agents and proton 2 pump inhibitors 11 Use of sterile water to rinse reusable respiratory equipment 5 1Oral care; 2 Hand hygiene; 3 No ventilator circuit changes unless clinically indicated; 4 Daily sedation vacation and readiness to wean assessment; 5 Intra-cuff pressure control 4 IHI ventilator bundleb

VAP rates significant Y 18.6e11.8

NA

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

VAP rates significant Y 17.43e10.81 (38% reduction)

Multicenter 14 developing countries

Pre-post observational

137,666 ventilator-days 11

14 Rello (2013)36

Multicenter Spain

Cohort (over 19 months)

1034 patients

15 Viana (2013)37

Single center Brazil Multicenter India Multicenter Thailand (surgical ICUs) Multicenter Turkey

Pre-post observational Pre-post observational

Pre-post observational

27,125 12,913 14,212 30,585

Multicenter Cuba Multicenter USA Multicenter USA Multicenter Korea

Pre-post observational

2364 vent-days

IHI ventilator bundle Oral care; Hand hygiene IHI ventilator bundleb Oral care Maintenance of endotracheal cuff pressure of 20-cm H2O 7 Removal of the condensate from ventilator circuits 8 Change of the ventilator circuit only when visibly soiled or malfunctioning 9 Avoidance of gastric overdistension 10 Avoidance of histamine receptor 2,(H)eblocking agents and proton 2 pump inhibitors 11 Use of sterile water to rinse reusable respiratory equipment 4 IHI ventilator bundleb

Prospective observational Pre-post observational

630 patients

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

684 patients

4 IHI ventilator bundleb

Pre-post observational

19,962 vent-days

4 1 2 3 4

16 Mehta (2013)38 17 Lim (2013)

39

18 Leblebicioglu (2013)40

19 Guanche-Garcell (2013)41 20 Croce (2013)42 21 Ding (2013)43 22 Eom (2014)44

Pre-post observational

patients: pre; post vent-days

1 2 3 4 5 6

6 (1e4) 5 6 11 (1e4) 5 6

HOB elevation 30 ; Oral care; PUD prophylaxis DVT prophylaxis

b

VAP rates significant Y 22.0e17.2 (22% reduction)

1 2 3 4

VAP rates significant Y 15.5e11.7% Median ICU LOS Y 10e6 days Duration of mechanical ventilation Y 8e4 days Compliance with all measures after intervention was

Ventilator-associated events prevention, learning lessons from the past: A systematic review.

Preventing Ventilator-associated events (VAE) is a major challenge. Strictly monitoring for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is not sufficient to...
1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 7 Views