VAP as a quality indicator in Europe?

VAP as a quality indicator in Europe? Jean-François Timsit Medical ICU INSERM U823 Grenoble, France

VAP in ICU: a quality indicator? • Frequent event • High morbidity and mortality • Event easy to measure with reproducible definitions • Easy to survey • Avoidable Quality indicator study group; ICHE 1995;16:308

Incidence of VAP (cohorts) is variable Safdar et al - Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2184 –2193 3% 38 prospective studies 48,112 patients Pooled cumulative incidence 9.7% (95% CI, 7.0 –12.5). 44%

Incidence of VAP (RCTs) is variable Safdar et al - Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2184 –2193 51 control group of randomized studies 4,802 patients Pooled cumulative incidence 22.8% (95% CI, 18.8 –26.9%)

Incidence per 100 ventilated patients(REA-RAISIN network)

Incidence of VAP (histology) is variable Klompas M- JAMA 2007; 297:1583 Summaryprevalence, 47%; 95% CI, 35%-59%)

VAP in ICU: a quality indicator? • Frequent event  Yes but variable • High morbidity and mortality • Event easy to measure with reproducible definitions • Easy to survey • Avoidable Quality indicator study group; ICHE 1995;16:308

« attributable » mortalityadjusted exposed-unexposed study only Test for heterogeneity Q = 61,1018, DF = 8, P < 0,0001 Adapted from Safdar et al – Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2184

Adjusted exposed-unexposed study † † † † (*) Matched exposed unexposed studies (admission severity) (†) Matched exposed unexposed studies (admisison severity and duration of exposure)

VAP are associated with an increase risk of death mainly when they are not appropriately treated Moine P et al OUTCOME-REA database

Why so important discordances? • The definition used Cook 1998 • The adequation of ABx Iregui 2002 • Intensity of the inflammatory response Bonten 1997 • The micro-organism Kollef 1993 Fagon 1996

VAP in ICU: a quality indicator? • Frequent event  Yes but variable • High morbidity and mortality  controversies, variable • Event easy to measure with reproducible definitions • Easy to survey • Avoidable Quality indicator study group; ICHE 1995;16:308

Clinical radiological and biological signs are of limited valuesKlompas M – JAMA2007; 297:1583

Empiric Abx without previous bacterial sampling largely decreases the number of depicted VAP Prats et al - Eur Respir J 2002; 19: 944–951

Proximal or distal Bronchoscopically guided or not?

NOSOREFWhat bacteriological sampling are performed (often or always) when VAP is suspected? (more than one anwer by ICU, n=251) L’Hériteau et al - Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:13-20).

NOSOREF- Per-fibroscopic exams by regions L’Hériteau et al - Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:13-20). P=0.01

Definitions 1- Chest X ray or CT abnormalities 2- Fever (>38°C) with no other cause and/or leukopenia (<4000) or leucocytosis (>12000) 3- Purulent aspirates or worsening gas exchange + PN1: Positive quantitative culture from minimally contaminated LRT specimen (PSB, BAL) PN2: Positive quantitative culture from possibly contaminated LRT specimen (TA) PN3: alternative (pleural fluid, histology, Legionella, Aspergillus, viruses, intra cellular organisms)

Numerator • Could we take into account the first episode only? • What are the criteria for relapses vs reinfections?

Easy and precise enough? There is a role for automatic data capture using electronic surveillance…Klompas M et al - Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29:31-37 If all the informations are computed… • Very good positive predictive value of an algorithm in diagnosing CDC defined VAP… But • Qualitative sampling only • Short ICU stay • No new empirical antimicrobials…  need to be validated in other countries (case-mix)

Denominator Stratification? • "Case-mix " issues • Patients’ severity? • Incidence or incidence density? • Specific incidence density?: VM (NIV?)

The Daily Risk of VAP(Cook & the CCCTG, Ann Intern Med, 1998) Daily Hazard Rate of VAP (% patients at risk) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Duration of Mechanical Ventilation (days)

VAP in ICU: a quality indicator? • Frequent event  yes but variable • High morbidity and mortality  controversies, variable • Event easy to measure with reproducible definition  not for the moment: internal comparisons only • Easy to survey  no • Avoidable Quality indicator study group; ICHE 1995;16:308

Duration of mechanical ventilation Non invasive ventilation sedation modulation of gastric colonization Disinfection or sterilization of medical devices Oral decontamination semi-recumbent position subglottic aspiration Formation Surveillance SDD Prevention of VAP:

Formation of HCW: effectiveness Ventilator associated pneumonia: Zack Critical Care Med 2002

Incidence density (p.1000 cvc-days) 14 Control 12 Interv. 10 8 6 4 2 0 LRTI BSI Sepsis Cath site UTI Impact of educational program on nosocomial infections Eggimann et al, Lancet, 2000; 355: 1864-68.

Multi-modules intervention programsGastemeier P – JHI 2007; 67:1

Classical biases • Publication bias • Regression to the mean effect • Difference between case-mix before and after improvement programs • Absence of relationship with « valid » outcome indicators • Decrease in VAP rate but no impact on duration of stay or mortality

VAP in ICU: a quality indicator? • Frequent event  yes but variable • High morbidity and mortality  controversies, variable • Event easy to measure with reproducible definitions  not for the moment, only for internal comparisons • Easy to survey  no • Avoidable  yes (less than BSI?) Quality indicator study group; ICHE 1995;16:308

VAP as a candidate for european benchmarking? Uçkay I – Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:557 • Case definitions • « Clinical » diagnosis of limited value • Various bacteriological samplings • Various published recommendations • Disease severity • No standardized well-accepted scale for assessing disease severity of pneumonia • Statistics • Incidence only • Denominator • Case-mix • Under adjustement will punish excellent centers • Surveillance • Precise, with integration of data from clinical reports, lab, pharmacy  dedicated staff • Important risk of public reporting • Many biases in interpreting « high » or « low » levels • Erroneous comparisons will focus patients and public attention even in the absence of real clinical problems • Data are vulnerable to profund misuse by the media

Risk factors and preventive measures as a quality indicator? Donabedian A– ICHE 1990:11:117 3 levels: • Stuctural: the stucture of a particular health care delivery system • Process: on the process of health care delivery • Outcome: on defined outcomes of health care delivery That is not because VAP is very difficult to diagnose that we must ignore it…

VAP as a quality indicator? Uçkay I – Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:557 Structural indicators Existence of a surveillance system Feedback Infection control policy Education of the staff Nurse to patient ratio Hydoalcoholic solution use Availability of bronchoscopy Sedation policy Weaning protocol…

VAP as a quality indicator? Uçkay I – Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:557 Process indicators MV patients > 2 days Reintubation rate Orotracheal intubation Supine head position Transport out of the ICU Physiotherapy after surgery Oropharyngeal cleaning Removal of secretions Stress ulcer prophylaxis…

Structural and process indicators • Easy to measure • Good stimulation for improvement of care • Public reporting more easy and precise  need to be measured and used…. • But • Should be related with no doubt to precise outcome indicators…..

VAP as a quality indicator • Outcome: • Careful definition • Dedicated staff • Case-mix adjustment difficult in routine  only for internal comparisons • Use risk factors and way of preventing VAP as process and stuctural indicators • But need carefull validation

VAP as a quality indicator in Europe?