Skip to main content
Download PDF

Update of the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU

Critical Care volume 24, Article number: 383 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

In accordance with the recommendations of, amongst others, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the recently published European treatment guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), in the event of a patient with such infections, empirical antibiotic treatment must be appropriate and administered as early as possible. The aim of this manuscript is to update treatment protocols by reviewing recently published studies on the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in the critically ill patients that require invasive respiratory support and patients with HAP from hospital wards that require invasive mechanical ventilation. An interdisciplinary group of experts, comprising specialists in anaesthesia and resuscitation and in intensive care medicine, updated the epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance and established clinical management priorities based on patients’ risk factors. Implementation of rapid diagnostic microbiological techniques available and the new antibiotics recently added to the therapeutic arsenal has been reviewed and updated. After analysis of the categories outlined, some recommendations were suggested, and an algorithm to update empirical and targeted treatment in critically ill patients has also been designed. These aspects are key to improve VAP outcomes because of the severity of patients and possible acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

Introduction/methodology

In accordance with the recommendations of, amongst others, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1] or the latest European treatment guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [2], in the event of a patient with such infections, empirical antibiotic treatment must be appropriate and administered as early as possible. Complying with these conditions is more important and more complex in patients being admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), both because of the severity of patient and the potential acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) which will doubtlessly be related to a higher level of unsuitable empirical treatment and, consequently, higher mortality. As an example, when reviewing the data from the National Surveillance Programme of Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-Acquired Infection in Europe Link for Infection Control through Surveillance (ENVIN-HELICS) [3], the likelihood of receiving an inadequate empirical treatment for a Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, even with combination therapy, is approximately 30%.

The development of new antibiotics and their use should be cautious. In the present manuscript, we propose different algorithms that allow to implement empirical and targeted use for potential MDROs. We must first and foremost capitalize on their greater in vitro activity, lower resistance and suitable efficacy in clinical trials and, secondly, antibiotic diversification and the need for carbapenem-sparing strategies [4, 5]. Antimicrobial optimization programmes, such as the US antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASP), aim to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with nosocomial infections, minimizing adverse effects associated with the use of antimicrobials (including the onset and dissemination of resistance) and guaranteeing the use of cost-effective treatments [6]. In addition, the analysis of its use and results obtained in patients and microbiological resistance result paramount. Avoiding unnecessary treatments and reducing the spectrum and duration of treatment together with the reduction of adverse effects and/or possible interactions will be the ultimate aim [7, 8].

This point of view article summarizes the recently published literature on the management of nosocomial pneumonia in the critically ill patients that require invasive respiratory support, both those arising from hospital wards that ultimately require ICU admission and those associated with mechanical ventilation. Experts were selected on the basis of their contrasted experience in the field of nosocomial infections, including specialists in anaesthesia and in intensive care medicine. An extensive search of the literature was performed by the authors using the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane library databases, from 2009 to October 2019, aimed to retrieve relevant studies on diagnosis and treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in ICU patients especially randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT), systematic reviews, meta-analysis and expert consensus articles. Priorities have been established in regard to the management, agreed by the group and based on risk factors for their development and prognostic factors. Moreover, the most important clinical entities, methods of rapid diagnostics in clinical microbiological available and new antibiotic treatments recently added to the therapeutic options have been reviewed and updated. After the analysis of the priorities outlined, recommendations that can be applied have been included. An algorithm that takes into account the priorities analysed to update empirical and targeted treatment in ICUs has also been designed.

Epidemiology

The definitions of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are not homogeneous and may alter the incidences reported [9]. In this document, we will refer to HAP as that which appears as of 48 h from hospital admission, in the ICU or in the hospital ward, whether or not related to mechanical ventilation (MV). We will use the term HAP to talk of that HAP unrelated to MV or intubation, as opposed to VAP, which is what appears after 48 h of MV. When a patient presents symptoms of infection of the lower respiratory tract after more than 48 h under MV and does not present opacities on chest X-ray, the patient is diagnosed with ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT).

Respiratory infections are the most prevalent nosocomial infection observed in ICUs [10]. In a broad global multicentre study, half the patients presented an infection at the time of the observation, 65% of respiratory origin [11] and HAP and VAP accounted for 22% of all hospital infections in a prevalence study performed in 183 US hospitals [12]. A total of 10 to 40% of patients who underwent MV for more than 48 h will develop a VAP. Marked differences are observed between different countries and kinds of ICU [13]. These variations can be accounted for by diagnostic difficulties, differences in the definition used, the diagnostic methods used and the classification of units because the prevalence of VAP is higher in certain populations (patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [14], with brain damage [15], or patients with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) [16].

If we analyse the density of incidence, significant differences between European and US ICUs have been reported. The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) (2013) reported that the average rate of VAP in the USA was 1–2.5 cases/1000 days of MV [17], substantially lower than in Europe, 8.9 episodes/1000 days of MV according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) [18]. In Spain, according to the ENVIN-HELICS 2018 report, the incidence was 5.87 episodes/1000 days of MV [3]. Both in the USA and in Europe, the incidence of VAP has gradually reduced [19], probably in relation to preventive measures [20], although a potential bias cannot be ruled out due to not very objective monitoring criteria.

A condition with growing relevance is ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT). In a prospective and multicentre study, the incidence of VAT and VAP was similar with 10.2 and 8.8 episodes for 1000 days of mechanical ventilation, respectively [21]. Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate VAT and VAP, and in fact, some authors advocate that the two entities are a continuum and that VAT patients can evolve towards VAP [22]. These authors report a series of reasons in their rationale: higher incidence of VAP in patients with VAT compared to those with VAT, post-mortem findings coexisting in both entities, higher ranges of biomarkers (procalcitonin) or severity scores in VAP compared to VAT and mortality, or a common microbiology [23].

Non-ventilated ICU patients appear to have a lower risk of developing pneumonia, as reported in a recent study, where 40% of cases of pneumonia acquired in the ICU occurred in patients who had not been ventilated previously [24]. Another study, performed in 400 German ICUs, reports a number of VAP of 5.44/1000 days MV, as opposed to 1.58/1000 days of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) or 1.15/1000 HAP patients [25]. The global incidence (including intra- and extra-ICU) of HAP ranges from 5 to more than 20 cases/1000 hospital admissions, being more complex to determine, because of the heterogeneity of definitions and the methodology used. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), analysing data from 947 hospitals in 30 countries, reports a prevalence of HAP of 1.3% (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.3%) [26]. However, a US study reports a frequency of HAP of 1.6% in hospitalized patients, with a density of incidence of 3.63/1000 patients-day [27]. Moreover, a Spanish multicentre study [28] that analysed 165 episodes of extra-ICU HAP reports an incidence of 3.1 (1.3–5.9) episodes/1000 admissions, variable according to hospital and type of patient.

In the non-ventilated patient’s group, when cultures are available, the aetiology is similar to VAP [24], with a predominance of P. aeruginosa, S. aureus and Enterobacteriaceae spp. [29]. This also depends on the patient’s severity, individual risk factors and local epidemiology.

Table 1 summarizes the studies published from 2010 to 2019 about the microbiology of ICU-acquired pneumonia (including HAP, VAP and VAT).

Table 1 Microbiology and main resistance profile of microorganism causing VAP, VAT and HAP in non-ventilated patients treated in ICU (data from studies published from 2010 to 2019)
Full size table

Impact on outcome

According to a case-control study, HAP patients presented a worse clinical course: higher mortality (19% vs 3.9%), more ICU admissions (56.3% vs 22.8%) and longer hospital stay (15.9 days vs 4.4 days). Overall, patients with HAP presented an odds ratio of dying 8.4 times higher than non-HAP patients [38]. It has traditionally been considered that VAP-associated mortality is higher than HAP [39]. When ICU-HAP was compared to VAP [25], the crude mortality was similar, which suggests that it is related more to patient-related factors than prior intubation. Therefore, when analysing data from 10 recent clinical trials in ICU patients, mortality was greater for HAP requiring MV, somewhat lower in VAP and less for non-ventilated HAP [40]. The need for intubation in this population is probably a marker of poor clinical progression of pneumonia. Adjusted mortality rates were similar for VAP and ventilated HAP. In a recent multicentre study that includes more than 14,000 patients and investigates the impact of VAP and HAP in the ICU, both were associated with a higher risk of death at 30 days [HR 1.38 (1.24–1.52) for VAP and 1.82 (1.35–2.45) for HAP] [37].

Overall, the mortality from HAP of 13% with an increase in hospital stay of 4 to 16 days and increased cost of 40,000 dollars per episode has been reported [27]. VAP has also been associated with an increased stay in the ICU and hospital, in addition to the increased time under mechanical ventilation [41]. The crude mortality rates of patients with VAP vary between 24 and 72%, with greater mortality in VAP caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa [42]. The more recent data estimate attributable mortality of 13%, higher in patients with intermediate severity and in surgical patients [43]. As for VAT, this has been related in different studies to a longer stay in ICU and more days of MV. However, to date, there are no randomized controlled trials showing a beneficial effect for the treatment in VAT. Moreover, higher mortality in patients presenting this complication has not been observed [21, 36, 44].

HAP risk factors

Traditionally, three kinds of risk factors for nosocomial pneumonia have been considered: patient-related, infection prevention-related and procedures-related. Patient-related factors are acute or chronic severe disease, coma, malnutrition, prolonged hospital length of stay, hypotension, metabolic acidosis, smoking and comorbidities (especially of the central nervous system but also chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, chronic renal failure and respiratory insufficiency). Amongst risk factors related to infection prevention, those notable are deficient hand hygiene or inappropriate care of respiratory support devices. Finally, amongst factors related to procedures, administration of sedatives, corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants, prolonged surgical procedures (especially at thoracic or abdominal level) and prolonged/inappropriate antibiotic treatment are the most recognized factors [13, 38, 45,46,47]. More recent studies have observed an increased risk of nosocomial pneumonia in patients who receive gastric acid-modifying drugs during their admission (OR: 1.3 [1.1–1.4]) [48].

Given that there is no artificial airway, we can consider pneumonia in the patient who undergoes NIMV as a subtype of pneumonia in the non-ventilated patient. A prospective study analysed 520 patients who received NIMV. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of age, sex, severity or gas exchange parameters amongst those patients who presented nosocomial pneumonia and complication of NIMV and those who did not [49].

A physiopathological approach for nosocomial pneumonia has been proposed in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Physiopathological approach of progression of nosocomial pneumonia from wards to ICU. From green to red colour, the progression of the severity of nosocomial pneumonia is described independently of the area of hospital admission. vHAP shows the poorest outcome. HAP, hospital-acquired pneumonia; NV-ICUAP, non-ventilated acquired pneumonia; VAP, ventilator-acquired pneumonia; vHAP, ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia

Full size image

Prognostic factors

Pneumonia acquired in the ICU leads to a negative impact in terms of morbidity, prolonged stay and duration of MV in case of VAP and a consequent increase in healthcare cost [24]. More controversial is the direct relationship between the development of nosocomial pneumonia and increase in mortality [50, 51].

Various factors have been associated with a worse prognosis of pneumonia including the existence of comorbidities, the patient’s performance status, the infection severity at the time of its development and the patient’s response to infection. However, the study of these factors is routinely eclipsed when the same analysis is performed whether or not a suitable empirical antibiotic is used [52].

The choice of an inappropriate antibiotic treatment, which is directly related to the existence of MDROs, is probably the most relevant and, even more important, potentially modifiable prognostic factor. In fact, the likelihood of death in case of inappropriate treatment substantially increases mortality in patients with severe infections [53, 54].

Therefore, to correctly evaluate the remaining prognostic factors, it is necessary to focus the analysis on those patients who receive a suitable empirical treatment. As a second step, we must choose between two possible clinical scenarios; to consider which factors, patient and disease-related are associated with a worse final outcome or to perform a more dynamic analysis and to try to elucidate which clinical course is associated with a poor response to the treatment and, consequently, a worse final outcome. Following the first option, older age, existence of a malignant haematology disease or clinical onset in the form of septic shock or severe acute respiratory failure will be associated with higher mortality, but there is not much clinical application of this association [55]. In the same way, it occurs with analytical aspects such as initial lymphopaenia [56].

There is more interest in the evaluation of the response to early treatment strategies. Against this backdrop, Esperatti et al. validated a few years ago the association between a series of clinical variables 72 to 96 h from the onset of treatment with the prognosis of 335 patients with nosocomial pneumonia [57]. The absence of improved oxygenation, the need for mechanical ventilation in case of HAP, the persistence of fever or hypothermia together with purulent respiratory secretions, radiological worsening in more than 50% of the lung area or the development of septic shock or multi-organ failure after the onset of antibiotic treatment were more common in patients with a worse clinical course (in terms of ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality). Amongst all of these aforementioned factors, the absence of improved oxygenation was significantly associated with greater mortality (OR 2.18 [1.24–3.84] p = 0.007). In regard to both the original figure and course at 72–96 h of scales such as the CPIS or biomarkers such as C-reactive protein or procalcitonin, most studies agree over its prognostic use and follow-up of infection [58].

MDROs: the link with colonization

MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing enterobacteria (ESBL-E), meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter baumannii and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) are the MDROs most commonly involved in HAP. Knowledge of local epidemiology is essential because there are significant differences in the local prevalence of each MDRO [59].

The ENVIN-HELICS report does quantify the resistance of the most important microorganisms to different antibiotics, which enables an overall vision of expected resistance rates in the case of nosocomial pneumonia in Spanish ICU [3].

The ENVIN-HELICS data also reveal an increased resistance of Klebsiella to carbapenems. The grade of resistance to antibiotics in the remaining bacteria has remained stable in the last few years. Table 1 shows the most important microorganisms that cause VAP and the percentage resistance to some of the main antibiotics used for these infections.

When evaluating the risk of development of nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU by a MDRO, we must first evaluate the risk factors for these pathogens. The European guidelines for nosocomial pneumonia [2] include risk factors for MDRO: septic shock, hospital ecology with high levels of MDROs, prior use of antibiotics, recent hospitalization (> 5 days) and prior colonization by MDROs. Risk factors are in general common to all MDRO; to discriminate different MDROs, we mainly base ourselves on local epidemiology and prior colonization of the patient [60]. The importance of colonization as a risk factor for suffering pneumonia by the colonizing microorganism varies according to the type of MDRO and location of the colonization. Table 2 describes the principal variables associated with resistance for the main MDROs causing NP.

Table 2 Principal variables associated with resistance for main MDROs causing NP
Full size table

Current and future solutions

In the event of sepsis in a critically ill patient, there is an urgent need to commence an empirical antibiotic treatment that is suitable, appropriate and early [1, 2] with the risk of resistance to multiple antibiotics, which hinders complying with the premises mentioned.

The future use of rapid diagnostics is promising and will undoubtedly change our approaches to diagnosis and treatment of NP optimizing empiric antibiotic treatment. New tests have been developed such as multiplex polymerase chain reaction (MPCR), exhalome analysis and chromogenic tests [73].

MPCR has reported a sensitivity of 89.2% and a specificity of 97.1%, using BAL samples, and 71.8% sensitivity and 96.6% (range, 95.4–97.5%) using endotracheal aspirates (ETA) [74].

In the MAGIC-BULLET study, Filmarray® showed a sensitivity of 78.6%, an specificity of 98.1%, a positive predictive value of 78.6% and a negative predictive value of 96.6% in respiratory samples. Furthermore, Filmarray® provided results within only 1 h directly from respiratory samples with minimal sample processing times [34].

A new score (CarbaSCORE) was recently published; its aim is to identify those critically ill patients who will need to be treated with a carbapenem with the intention of using these antibiotics more selectively [75]. This consideration is appropriate, however, ascertaining some of the variables necessary, such as the existence of bacteraemia or colonization by MDROs involves a delay, which cannot be assumed in the septic patient.

An algorithm that includes the priorities analysed to update empirical and targeted treatment in critically ill patients has been designed (Fig. 2) after reviewing the major randomized, controlled clinical trials of antimicrobial agents actually available for NP in the last 10 years [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84] (Table 3) and the considerations made before about epidemiology (Table 1), antimicrobial resistances (Table 2), rapid microbiological test and risk factors for HAP.

Fig. 2
figure 2

PANNUCI algorithm. From empirical to targeted treatment on nosocomial pneumonia in ICU. After analyzing the onset, the previous use of antimicrobials or clinical condition (vHAP or VAP), empirical antimicrobial therapy is chosen based on risk factors, previous colonization, local flora and/or use of rapid techniques. Therefore, targeted therapy is selected depending on the type of microorganism isolated and the possible advantages of one antimicrobial over others. AT, antimicrobial therapy; vHAP, ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia; VAP, ventilator-associated pneumonia; MDR, multidrug-resistant; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; CFT/TAZ, ceftolozane/tazobactam; CAZ/AVI, ceftazidime/avibactam; PIP/TAZ, piperacillin/tazobactam; AMG, aminoglycoside; AZT, aztreonam; EAT, empirical antimicrobial treatment; TAT, targeted antimicrobial treatment; OXA-48, OXA-48 carbapenemase; KPC, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase; R, resistance. *If Oxa-48 susceptible to CAZ/AVI

Full size image
Table 3 List of major randomized, controlled clinical trials of systemic antimicrobial agents actually available for treating NP in the last 10 years
Full size table

Some new antibiotics have been recommended over old ones based on their potential advantages shown in pivotal studies (Table 3), observational studies and in vitro data. However, the use of other families of antibiotics has been also warranted.

Various experts recommend using these new antibiotics according to the site of infection, clinical severity, existence of risk factors for MDRO acquisition, existence of comorbidities and existing MDROs in each unit/hospital as suggested in the algorithm [4, 5, 85,86,87].

The onset of two antibiotics such as ceftolozane/tazobactam (CFT-TAZ) and ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ/AVI) has broadened the treatment options for patients with suspected MDRO infection. Both antibiotics offer some advantages: apart from the demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials for approval, they present a better in vitro activity and less resistance and can also be used within the scope of an antibiotic policy aimed to reserve carbapenems [4, 5].

Because of its specific features, all authors included in this point of view manuscript coincided in the choice of CFT/TAZ to treat P. aeruginosa [85, 86] infections and CAZ/AVI for infections caused by KPC-like carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [87]. However, they acknowledged that both antibiotics have never been compared head to head.

CFT/TAZ presents greater in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa, with less resistance than the remaining current anti-pseudomonal agents in global terms [88]. CFT/TAZ also exhibits the lowest mutant prevention concentration (MPC) against P. aeruginosa, as well as colistin and quinolones (2 mg/L) [85]. The clinical trial ASPECT-NP [83] reveals a favourable result for patients who suffer from HAP that require invasive MV treated with CFT/TAZ (mortality at 28 days, 24.2% vs 37%) and also in those patients in whom initial antibiotic treatment failed (mortality at 28 days, 22.6% vs 45%). In patients with bacteraemia, a trend towards a higher rate of clinical cure (10.5% vs 36%), without statistical significance, was observed in CFT/TAZ-treated patients. In this clinical trial, higher levels of microbiological cure in pneumonia caused by P. aeruginosa were also observed in patients who received CFT/TAZ.

On the other hand, CAZ/AVI was associated with better survival rates in patients with bacteraemia who required rescue treatment in infections caused by KPC-producing Enterobacteriaceae [89]. In case of infection caused by a CAZ/AVI-susceptible OXA-48 strain, CAZ/AVI could be an option to treat it [90]. Data extracted from an in vitro study suggest that CAZ/AVI plus aztreonam could be an option to treat infections caused by metallo-β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [91].

The MERINO Trial [92] randomized patients hospitalized with bacteraemia caused by enterobacteria resistant to ceftriaxone to receive antibiotic treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam. The clinical outcomes were unfavourable for the group of patients that received piperacillin/tazobactam, which cuts down the treatment options for these infections. In published clinical trials, both CFT/TAZ and CAZ/AVI [82, 83] antibiotics demonstrated appropriate activity and clinical efficacy to ESBL-E, whereby they arise as a new alternative and may be included in carbapenem-spare regimens.

Cefiderocol recently received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis, and is currently being evaluated in phase III trials for treating nosocomial pneumonia and infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens including Acinetobacter spp. [93].

Colistin is really a non-effective drug to consider for HAP unless aerosolized. The Magic Bullet trial failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of colistin compared with meropenem, both combined with levofloxacin, in terms of efficacy in the empirical treatment of late VAP but showed the greater nephrotoxicity of colistin [84]. However, sometimes, especially in VAP caused by MDR Acinetobacter baumannii, no other options are available. Other antimicrobials such as ceftobiprole or tigecycline have not been considered due to the failure to demonstrate non-inferiority in some of the trials reviewed (Table 3).

The use of aerosolized therapy for VAP is still controversial. Two recent multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive nebulized antibiotics for VAP patients with suspected MDR Gram-negative pneumonia were negative to achieve their primary endpoints [94, 95]. For this reason, their use as an adjunctive therapy cannot be supported. Rescue therapy for MDROs might be considered when systemic therapy failed [96].

Antibiotic stewardship and duration of antibiotic therapy also deserve our attention. The clinical severity of a suspected VAP makes intensivists start as soon as possible broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy when, in fact, many patients treated do not have NP. Clinical scores, such as Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS), or non-specific biomarkers such procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) must be applied to begin or to stop antibiotic treatment as previously discussed [73].

Prolonged courses of antimicrobial therapy promote more resistance. European guidelines recommend antibiotic treatment for HAP no longer than 7 days [2]. However, the duration of therapy for MDROs is not clearly established. A new trial (iDIAPASON) is trying to demonstrate that a shorter therapy strategy in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-VAP treatment is safe and not associated with an increased mortality or recurrence rate [97]. This strategy could lead to decreased antibiotic exposure during hospitalization in the ICU and in turn reduce the acquisition and the spread of MDROs.

Conclusions

Determining the risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia is one of the pillars for the antibiotic selection. There are different risk factors: patient-related (prolonged hospital length of stay and comorbidities, use of prior antibiotics and septic shock), procedure-related (deficient hand hygiene or inappropriate care of respiratory support devices) and intervention-related (immunosuppressants and prolonged/inappropriate antibiotic treatment). Antibiotic treatment (including new ones) must be administered early and be appropriate. These aspects are key to VAP outcomes because of the severity of patients and the possible onset of MDROs.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

3°G cef:

3° generation cephalosporin

AT:

Antimicrobial therapy

AMG:

Aminoglycoside

ARDS:

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

ASP:

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes

AZT:

Aztreonam

CPE:

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae

CAZ/AVI:

Ceftazidime/avibactam

CFT/TAZ:

Ceftolozane/tazobactam

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CRP:

C-reactive protein

EAT:

Empirical antimicrobial treatment

ECDC:

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

ENVIN-HELICS:

National Surveillance Programme of Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-Acquired Infection in Europe Link for Infection Control through Surveillance

ESBL-E:

Extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing enterobacteria

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

HAP:

Hospital-acquired pneumonia

KPC:

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase

MDR:

Multidrug resistant

MDROs:

Multidrug-resistant organisms

MRSA:

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

MV:

Mechanical ventilation

NIMV:

Non-invasive mechanical ventilation

NV-ICUAP:

Non-ventilated acquired pneumonia

OXA-48:

OXA-48 carbapenemase

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

PCT:

Procalcitonin

PIP/TAZ:

Piperacillin/tazobactam

POCT:

Point of care test

RCT:

Randomized clinical trials

VA-ECMO:

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

VAP:

Ventilator-acquired pneumonia

VAT:

Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis

vHAP:

Ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia

TAT:

Targeted antimicrobial treatment

References

  1. Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The surviving sepsis campaign bundle: 2018 update. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):925–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Torres A, Niederman MS, Chastre J, Ewig S, Fernandez-Vandellos P, Hanberger H, et al. International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT). Eur Respir J. 2017;50(3):1700582.

  3. ENVIN - HELICS. Available from: http://hws.vhebron.net/envin-helics/. [cited 2019 Nov 2].

  4. Montravers P, Bassetti M. The ideal patient profile for new beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2018;31(6):587–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bassetti M, Righi E, Vena A, Graziano E, Russo A, Peghin M. Risk stratification and treatment of ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant/extensively drug-resistant/pandrug-resistant bacteria. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(5):385–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rodríguez-Baño J, Paño-Pardo JR, Alvarez-Rocha L, Asensio A, Calbo E, Cercenado E, et al. Programs for optimizing the use of antibiotics (PROA) in Spanish hospitals: GEIH-SEIMC, SEFH and SEMPSPH consensus document. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2012;30(1):22.e1–22.e23.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tabah A, Cotta MO, Garnacho-Montero J, Schouten J, Roberts JA, Lipman J, et al. A systematic review of the definitions, determinants, and clinical outcomes of antimicrobial de-escalation in the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(8):1009–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ruiz J, Ramirez P, Gordon M, Villarreal E, Frasquet J, Poveda-Andres JL, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship programme in critical care medicine: a prospective interventional study. Med Int. 2018;42(5):266–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin-Loeches I, Povoa P, Nseir S. A way towards ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infection research. Intensive Care Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06101-7 [cited 2020 May 26].

  10. Fernando SM, Tran A, Cheng W, Klompas M, Kyeremanteng K, Mehta S, et al. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06036-z [cited 2020 May 26].

  11. Vincent J-L, Rello J, Marshall J, Silva E, Anzueto A, Martin CD, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA. 2009;302(21):2323–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Fridkin SK. Emerging infections program healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use prevalence survey team. Survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(26):2542–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(4):388–416.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Forel J-M, Voillet F, Pulina D, Gacouin A, Perrin G, Barrau K, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and ICU mortality in severe ARDS patients ventilated according to a lung-protective strategy. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2012;16(2):R65.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Asehnoune K, Seguin P, Allary J, Feuillet F, Lasocki S, Cook F, et al. Hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (Corti-TC): a double-blind, multicentre phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(9):706–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bouglé A, Bombled C, Margetis D, Lebreton G, Vidal C, Coroir M, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients assisted by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: epidemiology and risk factors of treatment failure. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0194976.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dudeck MA, Weiner LM, Allen-Bridson K, Malpiedi PJ, Peterson KD, Pollock DA, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report, data summary for 2012, device-associated module. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(12):1148–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units - Annual Epidemiological Report for 2016. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 2018. Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/healthcare-associated-infections-intensive-care-units-annual-epidemiological-0. [cited 2019 Oct 24].

  19. Incidence and attributable mortality of healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units in Europe, 2008-2012. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 2018. Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/incidence-and-attributable-mortality-healthcare-associated-infections-intensive. [cited 2019 Oct 24].

  20. Álvarez-Lerma F, Palomar-Martínez M, Sánchez-García M, Martínez-Alonso M, Álvarez-Rodríguez J, Lorente L, et al. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: the multimodal approach of the Spanish ICU ‘Pneumonia Zero’ Program. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(2):181–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin-Loeches I, Povoa P, Rodríguez A, Curcio D, Suarez D, Mira J-P, et al. Incidence and prognosis of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (TAVeM): a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(11):859–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nseir S, Povoa P, Salluh J, Rodriguez A, Martin-Loeches I. Is there a continuum between ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and ventilator-associated pneumonia? Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(7):1190–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Keane S, Martin-Loeches I. Host-pathogen interaction during mechanical ventilation: systemic or compartmentalized response? Crit Care Lond Engl. 2019;23(Suppl 1):134.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Esperatti M, Ferrer M, Theessen A, Liapikou A, Valencia M, Saucedo LM, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit acquired by mechanically ventilated versus nonventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(12):1533–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kohlenberg A, Schwab F, Behnke M, Geffers C, Gastmeier P. Pneumonia associated with invasive and noninvasive ventilation: an analysis of the German nosocomial infection surveillance system database. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(6):971–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walter J, Haller S, Quinten C, Kärki T, Zacher B, Eckmanns T, et al. Healthcare-associated pneumonia in acute care hospitals in European Union/European Economic Area countries: an analysis of data from a point prevalence survey, 2011 to 2012. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Mal Transm Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2018;23(32):1700843.

  27. Giuliano KK, Baker D, Quinn B. The epidemiology of nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia in the United States. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(3):322–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sopena N, Sabrià M, Neunos 2000 Study Group. Multicenter study of hospital-acquired pneumonia in non-ICU patients. Chest. 2005;127(1):213–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Koulenti D, Tsigou E, Rello J. Nosocomial pneumonia in 27 ICUs in Europe: perspectives from the EU-VAP/CAP study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;36(11):1999–2006.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferrer M, Liapikou A, Valencia M, Esperatti M, Theessen A, Antonio Martinez J, et al. Validation of the American Thoracic Society-Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(7):945–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Restrepo MI, Peterson J, Fernandez JF, Qin Z, Fisher AC, Nicholson SC. Comparison of the bacterial etiology of early-onset and late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia in subjects enrolled in 2 large clinical studies. Respir Care. 2013;58(7):1220–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Quartin AA, Scerpella EG, Puttagunta S, Kett DH. A comparison of microbiology and demographics among patients with healthcare-associated, hospital-acquired, and ventilator-associated pneumonia: a retrospective analysis of 1184 patients from a large, international study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:561.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Nseir S, Martin-Loeches I, Makris D, Jaillette E, Karvouniaris M, Valles J, et al. Impact of appropriate antimicrobial treatment on transition from ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis to ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2014;18(3):R129.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pulido MR, Moreno-Martínez P, González-Galán V, Fernández Cuenca F, Pascual Á, Garnacho-Montero J, et al. Application of BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification panel for rapid identification of the causative agents of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24(11):1213.e1–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang Y, Jiao Y, Zhang J, Xu J, Cheng Q, Li Y, et al. Microbial etiology and prognostic factors of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter retrospective study in Shanghai. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(suppl_2):S146–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cantón-Bulnes ML, González-García MA, García-Sánchez M, Arenzana-Seisdedos Á, Garnacho-Montero J. A case-control study on the clinical impact of ventilator associated tracheobronchitis in adult patients who did not develop ventilator associated pneumonia. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2019;37(1):31–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ibn Saied W, Mourvillier B, Cohen Y, Ruckly S, Reignier J, Marcotte G, et al. A comparison of the mortality risk associated with ventilator-acquired bacterial pneumonia and nonventilator ICU-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):345–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Micek ST, Chew B, Hampton N, Kollef MH. A case-control study assessing the impact of nonventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia on patient outcomes. Chest. 2016;150(5):1008–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kollef MH, Shorr A, Tabak YP, Gupta V, Liu LZ, Johannes RS. Epidemiology and outcomes of health-care-associated pneumonia: results from a large US database of culture-positive pneumonia. Chest. 2005;128(6):3854–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Research C for DE and. Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia: developing drugs for treatment. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2019. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/hospital-acquired-bacterial-pneumonia-and-ventilator-associated-bacterial-pneumonia-developing-drugs. [cited 2019 Oct 24].

  41. Kollef MH, Hamilton CW, Ernst FR. Economic impact of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large matched cohort. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(3):250–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Micek ST, Wunderink RG, Kollef MH, Chen C, Rello J, Chastre J, et al. An international multicenter retrospective study of Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial pneumonia: impact of multidrug resistance. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2015;19:219.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Groenwold RHH, Bergmans DCJJ, Camus C, Bauer TT, et al. Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised prevention studies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(8):665–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nseir S, Di Pompeo C, Pronnier P, Beague S, Onimus T, Saulnier F, et al. Nosocomial tracheobronchitis in mechanically ventilated patients: incidence, aetiology and outcome. Eur Respir J. 2002;20(6):1483–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hospital-acquired pneumonia in adults: diagnosis, assessment of severity, initial antimicrobial therapy, and preventive strategies. A consensus statement, American Thoracic Society, November 1995. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996. 153(5):1711–25.

  46. Sopena N, Heras E, Casas I, Bechini J, Guasch I, Pedro-Botet ML, et al. Risk factors for hospital-acquired pneumonia outside the intensive care unit: a case-control study. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(1):38–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Di Pasquale M, Aliberti S, Mantero M, Bianchini S, Blasi F. Non-intensive care unit acquired pneumonia: a new clinical entity? Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(3):287.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Herzig SJ, Howell MD, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER. Acid-suppressive medication use and the risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia. JAMA. 2009;301(20):2120–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang Z, Duan J. Nosocomial pneumonia in non-invasive ventilation patients: incidence, characteristics, and outcomes. J Hosp Infect. 2015;91(2):153–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Bonten MJM. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality: a systematic review of observational studies. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(10):2709–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bekaert M, Timsit J-F, Vansteelandt S, Depuydt P, Vésin A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, et al. Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a reappraisal using causal analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(10):1133–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Dupont H, Mentec H, Sollet JP, Bleichner G. Impact of appropriateness of initial antibiotic therapy on the outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(2):355–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zilberberg MD, Shorr AF, Micek ST, Vazquez-Guillamet C, Kollef MH. Multi-drug resistance, inappropriate initial antibiotic therapy and mortality in Gram-negative severe sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2014;18(6):596.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kollef MH. Treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: get it right from the start. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(3):969–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ranzani OT, Ferrer M, Esperatti M, Giunta V, Bassi GL, Carvalho CRR, et al. Association between systemic corticosteroids and outcomes of intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(9):2552–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ceccato A, Panagiotarakou M, Ranzani OT, Martin-Fernandez M, Almansa-Mora R, Gabarrus A, et al. Lymphocytopenia as a predictor of mortality in patients with ICU-acquired pneumonia. J Clin Med 2019 13;8(6):843.

  57. Esperatti M, Ferrer M, Giunta V, Ranzani OT, Saucedo LM, Li Bassi G, et al. Validation of predictors of adverse outcomes in hospital-acquired pneumonia in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(9):2151–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Póvoa P, Martin-Loeches I, Ramirez P, Bos LD, Esperatti M, Silvestre J, et al. Biomarkers kinetics in the assessment of ventilator-associated pneumonia response to antibiotics - results from the BioVAP study. J Crit Care. 2017;41:91–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Beardsley JR, Williamson JC, Johnson JW, Ohl CA, Karchmer TB, Bowton DL. Using local microbiologic data to develop institution-specific guidelines for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2006;130(3):787–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bonten MJ, Weinstein RA. The role of colonization in the pathogenesis of nosocomial infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17(3):193–200.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Torre-Cisneros J, Natera C, Mesa F, Trikic M, Rodríguez-Baño J. Clinical predictors of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in nosocomial and healthcare-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, matched case-control study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;37(1):51–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Torre-Cisneros J, Tejero García R, Natera Kindelán C, Font Ugalde P, Franco Álvarez de Luna F, Castón Osorio JJ, et al. Risk factors of nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Med Clin (Barc). 2012;138(3):99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Metersky ML, Frei CR, Mortensen EM. Predictors of Pseudomonas and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitalized patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia. Respirol Carlton Vic. 2016;21(1):157–63.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Buhl M, Peter S, Willmann M. Prevalence and risk factors associated with colonization and infection of extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a systematic review. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2015;13(9):1159–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Fernández-Barat L, Ferrer M, De Rosa F, Gabarrús A, Esperatti M, Terraneo S, et al. Intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa with and without multidrug resistance. J Inf Secur. 2017;74(2):142–52.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rojo V, Vázquez P, Reyes S, Puente Fuertes L, Cervero M. Risk factors and clinical evolution of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in a university hospital in Spain. Case-control study. Rev Espanola Quimioter. 2018;31(5):427–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang Z, Qin R-R, Huang L, Sun L-Y. Risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection and mortality of Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. Chin Med J. 2018;131(1):56–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Gao B, Li X, Yang F, Chen W, Zhao Y, Bai G, et al. Molecular epidemiology and risk factors of ventilator-associated pneumonia infection caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:262.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Sbrana F, Malacarne P, Bassetti M, Tascini C, Vegnuti L, Della Siega P, et al. Risk factors for ventilator associated pneumonia due to carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in mechanically ventilated patients with tracheal and rectal colonization. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82(6):635–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Peralta G, Sánchez MB, Garrido JC, De Benito I, Cano ME, Martínez-Martínez L, et al. Impact of antibiotic resistance and of adequate empirical antibiotic treatment in the prognosis of patients with Escherichia coli bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(4):855–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Aydemir H, Tuz HI, Piskin N, Celebi G, Kulah C, Kokturk F. Risk factors and clinical responses of pneumonia patients with colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(10):1111–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Zheng Y, Wan Y, Zhou L, Ye M, Liu S, Xu C, et al. Risk factors and mortality of patients with nosocomial carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(7):e59–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Millot G, Voisin B, Loiez C, Wallet F, Nseir S. The next generation of rapid point-of-care testing identification tools for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(22):451.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Clavel M, Barraud O, Moucadel V, Meynier F, Karam E, Ploy M-C, et al. Molecular quantification of bacteria from respiratory samples in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(9):812.e1–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Teysseyre L, Ferdynus C, Miltgen G, Lair T, Aujoulat T, Lugagne N, et al. Derivation and validation of a simple score to predict the presence of bacteria requiring carbapenem treatment in ICU-acquired bloodstream infection and pneumonia: CarbaSCORE. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Freire AT, Melnyk V, Kim MJ, Datsenko O, Dzyublik O, Glumcher F, et al. Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;68(2):140–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Rubinstein E, Lalani T, Corey GR, Kanafani ZA, Nannini EC, Rocha MG, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(1):31–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kollef MH, Chastre J, Clavel M, Restrepo MI, Michiels B, Kaniga K, et al. A randomized trial of 7-day doripenem versus 10-day imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2012;16(6):R218.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Baruch A, et al. Linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(5):621–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ramirez J, Dartois N, Gandjini H, Yan JL, Korth-Bradley J, McGovern PC. Randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy of two high-dosage tigecycline regimens versus imipenem-cilastatin for treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(4):1756–62.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Awad SS, Rodriguez AH, Chuang Y-C, Marjanek Z, Pareigis AJ, Reis G, et al. A phase 3 randomized double-blind comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(1):51–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Torres A, Zhong N, Pachl J, Timsit J-F, Kollef M, Chen Z, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in nosocomial pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (REPROVE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):285–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kollef MH, Nováček M, Kivistik Ü, Réa-Neto Á, Shime N, Martin-Loeches I, et al. Ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (ASPECT-NP): a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(12):1299–311.

  84. Cisneros JM, Rosso-Fernández CM, Roca-Oporto C, De Pascale G, Jiménez-Jorge S, Fernández-Hinojosa E, et al. Colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (Magic Bullet study): an investigator-driven, open-label, randomized, noninferiority controlled trial. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2019;23(1):383.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Bassetti M, Vena A, Russo A, Croxatto A, Calandra T, Guery B. Rational approach in the management of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2018;31(6):578–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Mensa J, Barberán J, Soriano A, Llinares P, Marco F, Cantón R, et al. Antibiotic selection in the treatment of acute invasive infections by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: guidelines by the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy. Rev Espanola Quimioter. 2018;31(1):78–100.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Bassetti M, Righi E, Carnelutti A, Graziano E, Russo A. Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: challenges for treatment, prevention and infection control. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2018;16(10):749–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Goodlet KJ, Nicolau DP, Nailor MD. In vitro comparison of ceftolozane-tazobactam to traditional beta-lactams and ceftolozane-tazobactam as an alternative to combination antimicrobial therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(12):e01350–17.

  89. Tumbarello M, Trecarichi EM, Corona A, De Rosa FG, Bassetti M, Mussini C, et al. Efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam salvage therapy in patients with infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(3):355–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Alraddadi BM, Saeedi M, Qutub M, Alshukairi A, Hassanien A, Wali G. Efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):772.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Marshall S, Hujer AM, Rojas LJ, Papp-Wallace KM, Humphries RM, Spellberg B, et al. Can ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam overcome β-lactam resistance conferred by metallo-β-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(4):e02243–16.

  92. Harris PNA, Tambyah PA, Lye DC, Mo Y, Lee TH, Yilmaz M, et al. Effect of piperacillin-tazobactam vs meropenem on 30-day mortality for patients with E coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection and ceftriaxone resistance: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(10):984–94.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Wu JY, Srinivas P, Pogue JM. Cefiderocol: a novel agent for the management of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms. Infect Dis Ther. 2020;9(1):17–40.

  94. Kollef MH, Ricard J-D, Roux D, Francois B, Ischaki E, Rozgonyi Z, et al. A randomized trial of the amikacin fosfomycin inhalation system for the adjunctive therapy of Gram-negative ventilator-associated pneumonia: IASIS Trial. Chest. 2017;151(6):1239–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Inhaled amikacin solution BAY41-6551 as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of Gram-negative pneumonia - full text view - ClinicalTrials.gov. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01799993. [cited 2020 May 25].

  96. Niederman MS. Adjunctive nebulized antibiotics: what is their place in ICU infections? Front Med. 2019;6:99.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Bouglé A, Foucrier A, Dupont H, Montravers P, Ouattara A, Kalfon P, et al. Impact of the duration of antibiotics on clinical events in patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia: study protocol for a randomized controlled study. Trials. 2017;18(1):37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

No funding related to this manuscript was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Critical Care Department, Hospital Universitario Dr. Peset, Valencia, Spain

    Rafael Zaragoza

  2. Fundación Micellium, Valencia, Spain

    Rafael Zaragoza, Marcio Borges & Emilio Maseda

  3. ICU, Hospital Universitario Ourense, Ourense, Spain

    Pablo Vidal-Cortés

  4. SICU, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Gerardo Aguilar

  5. ICU, Hospital Universitario Son Llázter, Palma de Mallorca, Spain

    Marcio Borges

  6. Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain

    Emili Diaz

  7. Critical Care Department, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain

    Emili Diaz

  8. CIBERES Ciber de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Madrid, Spain

    Emili Diaz

  9. ICU, Hospital Vall d’Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain

    Ricard Ferrer & Francisco Xavier Nuvials

  10. SICU, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Emilio Maseda & Javier Veganzones

  11. ICU, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Nieto

  12. ICU, Hospital Universitari I Politecnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain

    Paula Ramirez

  13. ICU, Hospital Universitari Joan XXIII, Tarragona, Spain

    Alejandro Rodriguez

  14. ICU, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain

    Cruz Soriano

  15. ICU, Trinity Centre for Health Science HRB-Wellcome Trust, St James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Ignacio Martín-Loeches

Authors
  1. Rafael Zaragoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pablo Vidal-Cortés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerardo Aguilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcio Borges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emili Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ricard Ferrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emilio Maseda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mercedes Nieto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Francisco Xavier Nuvials
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paula Ramirez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alejandro Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Cruz Soriano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Javier Veganzones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ignacio Martín-Loeches
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RZ, PV and IML searched the scientific literature, drafted the manuscript and contributed to the conception and design. AR, GA, RF, MB, ED, EM, FN and PR also contributed to the conception and design. All authors read, critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Zaragoza.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

RZ received financial support for speaking at meetings organized on behalf of Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Pfizer and Shionogui. PV received financial support for speaking at meetings organized on behalf of Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Pfizer and Shionogui. FN received financial support for speaking at meetings organized on behalf of Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Pfizer, Astellas and Pfizer as well as honoraria for advisory from Shionogui. GA received financial support for speaking at meetings organized on behalf of Astellas, Gilead, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), and Pfizer, as well as unrestricted research grants from MSD and Pfizer. IML received financial support for speaking at meetings organized on behalf of Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Gilead.

AR, RF, MB, ED, EM, JV, MN, PR and CS declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaragoza, R., Vidal-Cortés, P., Aguilar, G. et al. Update of the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU. Crit Care 24, 383 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03091-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03091-2

Keywords

  • HAP
  • VAP
  • Nosocomial pneumonia
  • Ceftolozane-tazobactam
  • Ceftazidime-avibactam
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa
  • KPC
  • PCR

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535