Nosocomial pneumonia

The Occurrence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Patients Following Intensive Care Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Random Sample

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can now be applied to patients who have just had intensive care treatment. The authors tested whether the reliability of the diagnosis depends on the measuring instrument used and whether the occurrence of PTSD is related to the presence of preexisting psychic disorders or to a worsening of the patients’ general condition. The authors examined 41 former patients of an intensive care unit (ICU) with the Posttraumatic Scale (PTSS-10) and, afterward, with the Structured Clinical Interview (SCID). Screening with PTSS-10 showed that 17.07% of the patients met the recommended threshold for probable diagnosis of PTSD of 35 or more points. With SCID, PTSD could be confirmed in 9.76% of the cases. Patients with a prior psychiatric disease showed more frequent (P< .02) occurrences of PTSD. The severity of their Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation System II (Apache II) scores had no significant influence. PTSS-10 can be used for a preliminary diagnostic orientation. With the PTSD module of the SCID, a structured diagnostic tool is available. Almost twice as many PTSD cases were diagnosed among the subjects with the PTSS-10 as with SCID. Post-ICU PTSD occurred more frequently among patients with prior psychiatric diseases; however, it was not dependent on exacerbation of the patient’s Apache II scores.

Levofloxacin compared with imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label study

BACKGROUND

Therapy of nosocomial pneumonia is usually empiric and includes > or = 1 broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent. When considering the use of fluoroquinolones in these difficult-to-treat infections--in which drug delivery to the site of infection may be impaired or organisms with higher minimum inhibitory concentrations may be present--an agent should be chosen whose pharmacodynamics ensure maximal drug exposure. Use of the 750-mg dose of levofloxacin should enhance therapeutic benefit in patients with nosocomial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin 750 mg and imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial conducted in North America. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms: levofloxacin 750 mg QD given i.v. and then orally for 7 to 15 days or imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg to 1 g i.v. every 6 to 8 hours, followed by oral ciprofloxacin 750 mg every 12 hours for 7 to 15 days. Adjunctive antibacterial therapy was mandatory in patients with documented or suspected Pseudomonas aeruginosa or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. The primary predefined outcome measure was the clinical response (cure, improvement, failure, or unable to evaluate) in microbiologically evaluable patients 3 to 15 days after the end of therapy.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 438 adult patients (315 men, 123 women; mean [SD] age, 55.7 [20.04] years). Two hundred twenty patients received levofloxacin, and 218 received the comparator regimen. Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the intent-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations. In patients evaluable for microbiologic efficacy, clinical success (cure or improvement) was achieved in 58.1% (54/93) of patients who received levofloxacin, compared with 60.6% (57/94) of patients who received the comparator regimen (95% CI, -12.0 to 17.2). Similar clinical results were seen in patients evaluable for clinical efficacy and in the intent-to-treat population. In the 187 patients evaluable for microbiologic efficacy, eradication was achieved in 66.7% (62/93) of patients receiving levofloxacin and 60.6% (57/94) of patients receiving the comparator regimen (95% CI, -20.3 to 8.3).

CONCLUSION

In this study, levofloxacin was at least as effective and was as well tolerated as imipenem/cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, as demonstrated by comparable clinical and microbiologic success rates.

Treatment of aspiration in intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND

Aspiration is a common event, but the clinical consequences are variable. The primary determinants are the nature of the aspirated material and the host response to it. The purpose of this paper is to present treatment algorithms that should be employed in critically ill patients who experience aspiration.

METHODS

Expert review of the available literature was done to provide background information to support the logic of 3 treatment algorithms: (1) treatment of acute aspiration pneumonitis; (2) pulmonary care for acute aspiration; and (3) treatment of aspiration pneumonia.

RESULTS

The discussion of aspirations is separated into 2 clinical scenarios: (1) aspiration pneumonitis (sterile inflammation) versus (2) aspiration pneumonia (an infectious process). Aspiration pneumonitis should be treated by aggressive pulmonary care to enhance lung volume and clear secretions. Intubation should be used selectively. Early corticosteroids and prophylactic antibiotics are not indicated. Treatment of aspiration pneumonia requires diligent surveillance for the clinical signs of pneumonia. Treatment decisions are based on 3 factors: (1) clinical diagnostic certainly (definite versus probable), (2) time of onset [early (< 5 days) versus late (> or = 5 days)], and (3) host factors (high risk versus low risk). There is no ideal antibiotic regimen. Unit-specific resistance patterns and known frequency pathogens should direct broad spectrum empiric therapy. Invasive diagnostic techniques (such as bronchoalveolar lavage) should be used when the diagnosis is not certain. Antibiotic coverage should be narrowed once sputum culture results become available.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspiration is common in critically ill patients and should be aggressively treated by these treatment algorithms.

Future considerations in aspiration pneumonia in the critically ill patient: what is not known, areas for future research, and experimental methods

The medical literature supports the use of enteral feeding to provide nutrition and improve patient outcomes. A major complication of enteral feeding is aspiration and associated morbidity and mortality. Many knowledge gaps exist that inhibit our ability to define and diagnose aspiration, identify patients at risk, and develop prevention techniques. Several areas of inquiry should be explored to help us define and prevent the disorder--for instance, standardized criteria should be developed for diagnosing aspiration pneumonia and for differentiating it from other types of pneumonia, and accurate tests should be devised for detecting it. Research also is needed to evaluate the influence of (1) various enteral feeding sites on aspiration risk, (2) the effects of risk reduction techniques such as selective decontamination and use of promotility agents, and (3) potential benefits of immunonutrition. Current parameters used in decisions about when to initiate enteral feeding in critically ill patients are defined.