4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in a multi-hospital system: Differences in microbiology by location

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 853-858

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/502149

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM00709] Funding Source: Medline
  2. ODCDC CDC HHS [UR8/CCU715087-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there were differences in the microbiologic etiologies of ventilator-associated pneumonia in different clinical settings. DESIGN: Observational retrospective cohort study of microbiologic etiologies of ventilator-associated pneumonia from 1998 to 2001 in a multi-hospital system. Microbiologic results were compared between hospitals and between different intensive care units (ICUs) within hospitals. SETTING: Three hospitals-one pediatric teaching hospital, one adult teaching hospital, and one community hospital in one healthcare system in the midwestern United States. PATIENTS: Patients at the target hospitals who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia and for whom microbiologic data were available. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-three episodes of ventilator-associated pneumonia had culture data available for review. The most common organisms at all hospitals were Staphylococcus aureus (28.4%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.2%). The pediatric hospital had higher proportions of Escherichia coli (9.5% vs 2.3%; P < .001) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (13% vs 3.1%; P < .001) than did the adult hospitals. In the pediatric hospital, the pediatric ICU bad higher P aeruginosa rates than did the neonatal ICU (33.3% vs 17%; P = .01). In the adult hospitals, the surgical ICU had higher Acinetobacter baumannii rates (10.2% vs. 1.7%; P < .001) than did the other ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Microbiologic etiologies of ventilator-associated pneumonia vary between and within hospitals. Knowledge of these differences can improve selection of initial antimicrobial regimens, which may decrease mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据