2180. Incidence and Outcomes of Ventilator Associated Events, Utilising Centre for Disease Control Criteria in a Tertiary Intensive Care Unit, Victoria, Australia.
Session: Poster Abstract Session: Healthcare Epidemiology: HAI Surveillance
Saturday, October 6, 2018
Room: S Poster Hall
Background: Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is a common complication of admission to intensive care units (ICU), and may be associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare cost. While VAP surveillance is a desirable element of ICU infection prevention programmes, the lack of an easily applicable definition, providing accurate and clinically meaningful data limits implementation.

We aimed to conduct a pilot study of Ventilator Associate Event (VAE) surveillance, per Centre for Disease Control National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC NHSN) criteria, to describe the incidence, and outcomes for patients with VAE in our setting.

Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in our 24-bed mixed tertiary ICU in Melbourne, Australia. Adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥2 days between March and October, 2015, were included. We collected detailed clinical and laboratory data, including antibiotic duration and indication, and ICU and hospital length of stay. We applied the CDC NHSN criteria.

Results: We included 202 patients (median age 58.1± 17.8 years, 32.7% female, 73% medical), over 1390 ventilator days. Ventilator Associated Condition (VAC) occurred in 33 (16.3%) patients (23.7 per 1000 ventilator days), Infection-related VAC (IVAC) in 15 (7.4%) patients (10.7 per 1000 ventilator days), and Possible VAP (PVAP) in 8 (3.9%) patients (5.75 per 1000 ventilator days). In contrast, clinician-diagnosed VAP (CD-VAP) occurred in 37 (18.3%) patients (26.6 per 1000 ventilator days). Patients with VAC had a greater median number of ventilator days (12 vs 4, p < 0.001), ICU length of stay (LOS) (17 vs 6 days, p < 0.005), hospital LOS (30 vs 19 days, p =0.005), and antibiotic days (12 vs 5, p < 0.001), than those without VAC. CD-VAP was associated with VAC (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.1-10.6, p < 0.001), but agreement was poor (kappa 0.29). The overall sensitivity of VAC for CD-VAP was 38%, specificity was 89%, PPV 48%, NPV 85%, while for PVAP these were 17%, 99%, 88% and 82%, respectively.

Conclusion: VAC is associated with important, measurable surveillance outcomes, but the agreement, sensitivity and predictive value of these criteria for CD-VAP are poor. Hence the CDC criteria may miss clinically important healthcare associated infections and may not capture the most appropriate target group for VAP prevention.

David Griffin, BBiomedSc, BSc (Hons), MBBS (Hons), MPH1, Irani Thevarajan, MBBS, FRACP, PhD1,2, Simon Iles, MBChB, FRACP, FCICM3, Thomas Rechnitzer, MBBS, FCICM3, Timothy Spelman, MBBS, FRACGP, PhD2,4, Deborah Barge, BN, CCRN3, Caroline Marshall, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, GradDipClinEpi1,2, Nerina Harley, MBBS, MD, PGDipEcho, FRACP, FCICM, AFRACMA3,5,6 and Michael Richards, MBBS, FRACP, MD1,2,4, (1)Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia, (2)The Peter Doherty Institute, Parkville, Australia, (3)Intensive Care Unit, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia, (4)Victorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, Parkville, Australia, (5)Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia, (6)Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Critical Care Clinical Network, Safer Care Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

Disclosures:

D. Griffin, None

I. Thevarajan, None

S. Iles, None

T. Rechnitzer, None

T. Spelman, None

D. Barge, None

C. Marshall, None

N. Harley, None

M. Richards, None

Findings in the abstracts are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. PDT, Wednesday Oct. 3rd with the exception of research findings presented at the IDWeek press conferences.