Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Update on ventilator-associated pneumonia

Guillamet, Cristina Vazqueza,b; Kollef, Marin H.c

Current Opinion in Critical Care: October 2015 - Volume 21 - Issue 5 - p 430–438
doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000231
INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Edited by Marin H. Kollef
Free

Purpose of review To highlight the importance of escalating pathogen resistance in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) along with diagnostic and treatment implications.

Recent findings In a period of rising bacterial resistance, VAP remains an important infection occurring in critically ill patients. Risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens depend on both local epidemiology and host factors. New diagnostic techniques and antimicrobials can help with rapid bacterial identification and timely and appropriate treatment while avoiding emergence of bacterial resistance.

Summary Clinicians should be aware of risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens causing VAP and also of particularities of diagnosis and treatment of this important clinical entity.

aDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine

bDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico

cDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Correspondence to Marin H. Kollef, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. E-mail: mkollef@dom.wustl.edu

Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a complication occurring in ventilator-dependent patients of all ages associated with hospital mortality rates as high as 40%, significantly greater hospital lengths of stay, and increased healthcare costs [1–5]. Despite research into the pathophysiology and microbiology of VAP, pneumonia complicating mechanical ventilation remains an important clinical problem because of the compromised critically ill hosts within whom it occurs and the resistant nature of the microorganisms it is caused by.

Box 1

Box 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

EPIDEMIOLOGY

Although VAP appears to be a global problem [6▪], the pathogens associated with VAP are variable, depending on host factors, exposure to the healthcare system and antibiotics, local epidemiology, and infection control practices [1,4,7]. However, it is important to recognize that one of the major clinical issues related to the management of VAP, and other nosocomial infections, is the increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extremely drug-resistant (XDR) pathogens [1,8–11]. Although rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have finally dropped, resistance among gram-negative bacilli (GNB) causing VAP is showing concerning trends (Table 1). The recent recognition of Enterobacteriaceae containing the New Delhi metallo β-lactamase 1 (NDM1) gene, and the emergence of colistin resistance within carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), raise the real possibility of endemic spread of common enteric bacteria possessing resistance to all currently available antibacterial agents [18,19▪,20▪].

Table 1

Table 1

The emergence of MDR/XDR pathogens as a cause of VAP has resulted in greater administration of inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy (IIAT), defined as an antimicrobial regimen that lacks in-vitro activity against the isolated organism(s) responsible for the infection [21]. IIAT is associated with excess mortality in patients with VAP [12,22–24]. Escalating rates of antimicrobial resistance lead many clinicians to empirically treat critically ill patients with a combination of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can perpetuate the cycle of increasing resistance. Moreover, the limited diversity of available antimicrobial agents has created a clinical situation in which patients are often repetitively exposed to the same class of antibiotics. Therefore, the broader concern for all clinicians caring for critically ill patients with presumed VAP is how best to treat these individuals and limit the emergence and spread of MDR/XDR bacteria. Knowledge of patient-specific risk factors for antibiotic resistance and the predominant pathogens associated with VAP at the local level should assist clinicians in avoiding the unnecessary administration of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics.

The cause of VAP is often divided according to time of onset and presence of risk factors for antibiotic resistance [25]. Certain risk factors, like the total duration of hospitalization prior to infection onset and recent antibiotic exposure, may be more important in determining the cause of VAP [9,26–29]. Moreover, it is now acknowledged that specific characteristics predispose patients with pneumonia to infection with more antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These risk factors include hospital admission from a long-term care facility, recent hospitalization, hemodialysis, immunosuppression, gastric acid suppression, nonambulatory status, and greater severity of illness [30–33]. Also, certain features present on admission, such as severe hypoxemia, bilateral infiltrates, and presence of pleural effusion, could point toward a resistant pathogen [34▪▪]. These risk factors in patients at risk for VAP should be considered in determining the likelihood of infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and choosing the empirical antimicrobial regimen [25,35].

Early-onset VAP (occurring within 4 to 5 days after onset of mechanical ventilation) was thought to usually be caused by more antibiotic-susceptible community-acquired pathogens (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae) and anaerobic gram-positive microbial flora of the oral cavity. Conversely, late-onset VAP was traditionally attributed to infection with MDR bacteria [1,25]. However, recent reports suggest that this temporal classification does not always hold and that both early and late VAP experience similar rates (∼30%) of MDR pathogens [26,27]. Local prevalence of MDR or XDR bacteria contributes significantly to each patient's risk of MDR pathogens and also modifies prediction rules, making constant epidemiological surveys very relevant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DIAGNOSTICS

The diagnosis of VAP is problematic because noninfectious conditions can cause pulmonary infiltrates and systemic findings such as leukocytosis, fever, and increased oxygen requirements [36]. Various diagnostic criteria with variable rigor have been developed to assist in the diagnosis of VAP. However, the most stringent criteria available were associated with the greatest observed mortality, and establishing the diagnosis of VAP took significantly longer when applying them compared with less stringent criteria, potentially resulting in delayed therapy [37▪▪]. Erring on the side of caution, most clinicians use the finding of a new or progressive radiographic infiltrate and at least one clinical feature (fever, leukocytosis, worsening oxygenation, or purulent tracheal secretions), which has high sensitivity but low specificity for VAP [25]. The difficulty in relying on clinical criteria for the diagnosis of VAP translates into the unnecessary administration of antibiotics to noninfected patients. This has the potential to promote further emergence of antibiotic resistance, especially when used for prolonged time periods, and to dilute out clinicians’ ability to identify the impact of treating patients with IIAT [38,39].

American Thoracic Society guidelines reflect on the low accuracy of microbiology cultures as a diagnostic tool in VAP [25]. Contamination with upper respiratory tract pathogens or endotracheal tube colonizers is common. Traditional flow with gram staining, cultures, and antibiotic susceptibility testing requires at least 48–98 hours. Newer microbiology methods are gaining applicability in timely identification of respiratory pathogens. Nucleic acid amplification tests can target an unique pathogen (e.g., MRSA), or probably more useful in VAP will be the multiplex arrays that simultaneously identify multiple bacteria including resistance genes (e.g., mecA, blaKPC, blaIMI, etc.). With better understanding of the mechanisms involved in antimicrobial resistance (e.g., carbapenemases producers), more and more genes ought to be included in the multiplex arrays to allow complete testing. In addition, the mere presence of a resistance gene does not always correlate with antibiotic resistance [40▪]. The hope was that MRSA nasal swab PCRs would noninvasively predict MRSA pneumonia. In the best prospective study to date, positive predictive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) have been disappointing: 17.7% and 84.4% [41]. More recently, retrospective studies provided discordant results: across both community-acquired pneumonia and health care-associated pneumonia, PPV was 34.5% with NPV of 99.2% [42]. In a study of critically ill patients with probable selection bias (only patients with a clinical diagnosis of S. aureus pneumonia were included), PPV was 97.4% whereas the NPV dropped to 54.3% [43]. When performed on endotracheal aspirates in ventilated patients, Xpert MRSA (a real-time PCR MRSA platform) had a NPV of 98.9%, allowing rapid cessation of antimicrobials targeting MRSA [44]. So far, few multiplex platforms have been FDA cleared for bloodstream pathogens and respiratory viruses. Currently, some are expanding to include lower respiratory tract bacteria (BioFire, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Curentis Unyvero, Holzgerlingen, Germany). PCR identification can also be used in exhaled breath condensate fluid, with one study showing a high correlation with bronchoalveolar lavage culture results [45▪▪]. For a nuclear amplification test to be widely accepted as a diagnostic tool in VAP, its performance needs to be validated across all respiratory samples including endotracheal aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and protected brush specimens. In order to obtain a full susceptibility panel, routine antibiotic susceptibility testing normally accompanies the PCR/nucleic acid amplification testing, thus adding extra time needed to finalize the results. Following use in bloodstream infections, ‘real-time PCR antibiogram’ may be developed in the future for respiratory specimens to combine detection and susceptibility testing [46,47].

During the last decade, proteomics technologies have moved toward becoming the gold standard in bacterial identification. Excellent results with great reproducibility and fast turnaround time were obtained when using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight to identify protein mass patterns that lead to accurate bacterial detection [48,49]. This technology has been very well validated for rapid identification, but one major drawback remains the requirement for positive cultures.

Ideally, new methods would eliminate the need for both conventional cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. A promising technology based on multiplexed automated digital microscopy traps individual bacterial clones and identifies them based on growth over time, single colony morphology, and fluorescent in situ hybridization [50,51,52▪]. After growth monitoring for 2 h, MDR pathogens obtained via mini BALs were identified with a sensitivity of 85–99% and specificity of 88–100% when compared with conventional cultures [53]. Automated systems using antimicrobial disks are being developed for respiratory specimens, with S. aureus successfully classified into vancomycin sensitive S. aureus, heterogeneous vancomycin intermediate S. aureus (hVISA), and vancomycin intermediate S. aureus (VISA) [54▪].

A few steps behind, but very appealing because of the noninvasive sampling and possibility of continuous monitoring, come the exhaled breath test analyses looking at bacterial volatile organic compounds (VOC). Very specific peaks in the volatile metabolites captured by mass spectrometry can single out certain bacteria like S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa[55]. VOC patterns or fingerprints produced by various bacterial strains can be identified by electronic noses or optical spectra systems [56–58]. Based on the assumption that colonizing bacteria experience different metabolism, VOC fingerprints were able to classify noninfected, colonized, and infected ventilated patients when monitored with an electronic nose thrice weekly [59▪]. A similar study showed that breath analysis profiles correlated with bacterial load in the respiratory tract of intubated patients [60]. As VOCs are also produced by humans, exhaled breath profiling could theoretically be used in differentiating VAP from other causes of respiratory failure in ventilated patients [61].

Back to Top | Article Outline

TREATMENT FACETS

Recent years have brought significant strides in clinical bacteriology, but the quest for a perfect test for VAP continues. The cumbersome task of choosing the right empirical antibiotics remains. In addition, the timing of antibiotic delivery, ideally within the first hour, is an essential element in determining the outcome of critically ill patients with infection [62,63▪]. Iregui et al.[22] found that 30.8% of the 107 patients with VAP in their study received antibiotic treatment that was delayed for 24 h or more, with the most common reason being a delay in writing the antibiotic orders (n = 25; 75.8%). The administration of delayed appropriate therapy was identified as a risk factor independently associated with hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 7.68; 95% confidence interval, 4.50–13.09; P < 0.001]. Similarly, a study of 2154 septic shock patients (37.2% secondary to pneumonia) found that each hour of delay over the first 6 h was associated with an average decrease in survival of 7.6% per hour [64]. Faster administration of appropriate antibiotics can probably be obtained using protocolized management of septic shock [65]. As discussed above, prediction tools for the presence of antibiotic resistance and rapid diagnostics may provide timely guidance in antibiotic choices. However, ICUs should also insure that they have processes in place to obtain and deliver antibiotic therapy expeditiously. In addition, adequate drug concentrations at the site of infection are needed to optimize clinical outcomes. Murine models of Pseudomonas pneumonia evidence the importance of antibiotic-mediated initial bacterial kill, which allows granulocytes to efficiently accomplish bacterial clearance [66]. GNB responsible for infections in the critically ill populations exhibit higher minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC; as much as eight times higher for meropenem in a study across eight German ICUs) compared with GNB causing infections in ward patients [67]. So, knowing the MIC becomes necessary in calculating target levels for maximal antibiotic effect.

Many factors influence the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of antimicrobials in the critically ill. Hypoalbuminemia, large volume crystalloid administration, large effusions, catecholamines, augmented renal clearance, renal replacement therapies, and organ dysfunction can all significantly alter infection site concentrations of administered antibiotics [68,69]. Studies determining accurate dosing in healthy volunteers tend to underestimate appropriate antimicrobial dosing in critically ill patients [70].

β-Lactam and carbapenem antibiotics are time-dependent antimicrobials whose activity is primarily related to the duration of time the free drug concentration exceeds the pathogen MIC (TFREE/MIC). A TFREE/MIC of 100% of the dosage interval should be a theoretical target for β-lactams. For carbapenems, which have a longer postantibiotic effect, a bactericidal effect is observed for a TFREE/MIC of 40%. In a multicenter trial, the investigators aimed to determine whether β-lactam antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients achieves concentrations associated with maximal activity and whether antibiotic concentrations affect patient outcome [71▪▪]. Sixteen percent of the patients treated for infection did not achieve TFREE/MIC > 1 at 50% of the dosing interval. Positive clinical outcome was associated with TFREE/MIC ratio > 1 at both 50% and 100% of the dosing intervals (OR, 1.02 and 1.56, respectively; P < 0.03). Furthermore, additional improvement in efficacy has been observed when concentrations four-fold to five-fold greater than the MIC are achieved for prolonged time periods during each dosing interval [72,73]. Therapeutic drug monitoring may become particularly useful in attaining antimicrobial target levels in high-inoculum infections like pneumonia [74–77].

Clinicians practicing in the ICU setting should attempt to optimize antimicrobial exposure by insuring that maximal dosing occurs. Once a concentration higher than the bacterial MIC is achieved with a maximal loading dose, further improvements in exposure can possibly be obtained with the use of prolonged/continuous infusions. Most trials looking at prolonged infusions have been retrospective, with various designs and conflicting results regarding meaningful clinical outcomes [78–82]. A recent, small sample multicenter trial randomized patients with severe sepsis to continuous infusion versus intermittent boluses of β-lactams [83]. Pneumonia was responsible for approximately 40% of the infections, but only a very small number of microbes were presumed MDR pathogens [one Acinetobacter, one extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) Escherichia coli, and two Pseudomonas isolates]. The intervention group achieved higher plasma antibiotic concentrations and cure rates. Although the trial was not powered to capture a difference in other outcomes, survival also showed a favorable trend.

Treatment options for the most frequent causative pathogens of VAP are detailed in Table 2, focusing on antimicrobial options for MDR microbes. Among infections in critically ill patients, VAP occupies a distinct place, with multiple studies showing different evolution and outcomes despite a prompt appropriate antibiotic regimen. Trials using potent antibiotics such as tigecycline, doripenem, and ceftobiprole failed in VAP after successful outcomes in other infectious diseases, suggesting the need for higher dosing and/or longer duration in VAP.

Table 2

Table 2

The data supporting the use of shorter courses of antibiotic therapy of 7–8 days are robust for VAP, accounting for clinical severity and evolution, and most importantly the underlying microbiology [113–116]. The exceptions to shorter courses of antibiotic therapy in VAP are difficult-to-treat pathogens such as P. aeruginosa and other nonfermenters that experience higher recurrence rates with shorter treatment regimens [113]. Moreover, at least one randomized trial has found a greater mortality among patients with P. aeruginosa VAP receiving only 7 days of treatment with doripenem [106]. In patients with clinically suspected VAP and negative bronchoscopy cultures, antibiotics can probably be stopped earlier. In a retrospective study, early discontinuation of antibiotics (at day 4, 1 day after negative quantitative bronchoscopy cultures) did not increase mortality when compared with late discontinuation (at day 9) [117].

When feasible, shorter duration of antibiotic therapy may help to curb the rising prevalence of MDR pathogens in VAP. Another useful strategy may be antibiotic heterogeneity, an idea backed up by mathematical models and a recent study, which showed that mixing the available antibiotics may prevent emergence of resistant pathogens [11].

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION

In summary, clinicians should be aware that prevalence of MDR pathogens is rising in VAP, but each patient's risk depends primarily on local epidemiology and host factors. Better rapid diagnostics on the horizon will transform empirical antimicrobial therapy into targeted therapy. VAP requires prompt and accurately dosed antibiotic treatment. When appropriate, shorter duration, rapid de-escalation and antibiotic diversity may decrease emergence of resistant pathogens.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

We thank Rebecca Light for her assistance with this manuscript.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Financial support and sponsorship

This work was supported by the Barnes- Jewish Hospital foundation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

M.K. is also a consultant for Merck, Cubist and Accelerate Diagnostics. The remaining author has no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • ▪ of special interest
  • ▪▪ of outstanding interest
Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Chastre J, Fagon J-Y. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:867–903.
2. Kollef MH, Hamilton CW, Ernst FR. Economic impact of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large matched cohort. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012; 33:250–256.
3. Bekaert M, Timsit J-F, Vansteelandt S, et al. Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a reappraisal using causal analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184:1133–1139.
4. Magret M, Amaya-Villar R, Garnacho J, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in trauma patients is associated with lower mortality: results from EU-VAP study. J Trauma 2010; 69:849–854.
5. Safdar N, Dezfulian C, Collard HR, Saint S. Clinical and economic consequences of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2184–2193.
6▪. Kollef MH, Chastre J, Fagon J-Y, et al. Global prospective epidemiologic and surveillance study of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:2178–2187.

A study underlying the worldwide importance of VAP focusing on P. aeruginosa.

7. Cernada M, Brugada M, Golombek S, Vento M. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in neonatal patients: an update. Neonatology 2014; 105:98–107.
8. Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012; 18:268–281.
9. Chung DR, Song J-H, Kim SH, et al. High prevalence of multidrug-resistant nonfermenters in hospital-acquired pneumonia in Asia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184:1409–1417.
10. Jones RN. Microbial etiologies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2010; 51 (Suppl 1):S81–S87.
11. Sandiumenge A, Lisboa T, Gomez F, et al. Effect of antibiotic diversity on ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by ESKAPE Organisms. Chest 2011; 140:643–651.
12. Tumbarello M, De Pascale G, Trecarichi EM, et al. Clinical outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39:682–692.
13. Luna CM, Sarquis S, Niederman MS, et al. Is a strategy based on routine endotracheal cultures the best way to prescribe antibiotics in ventilator-associated pneumonia? Chest 2013; 144:63–71.
    14. Peña C, Gómez-Zorrilla S, Oriol I, et al. Impact of multidrug resistance on Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia outcome: predictors of early and crude mortality. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol 2013; 32:413–420.
      15. Qureshi ZA, Hittle LE, O’Hara JA, et al. Colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: beyond Carbapenem resistance. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2015; 60:1295–1303.
        16. Kollef MH, Shorr A, Tabak YP, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of health-care-associated pneumonia: results from a large US database of culture-positive pneumonia. Chest 2005; 128:3854–3862.
        17. Meyer E, Schwab F, Gastmeier P. Nosocomial methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia - epidemiology and trends based on data of a network of 586 German ICUs (2005–2009). Eur J Med Res 2010; 15:514–524.
        18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013; 62:165–170.
        19▪. Biedenbach D, Bouchillon S, Hackel M, et al. Dissemination of NDM metallo-β-lactamase genes among clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae collected during the SMART global surveillance study from 2008 to 2012. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59:826–830.

        A surveillance study showing the global spread of NDM metallo-β-lactamase genes.

        20▪. Ah Y-M, Kim A-J, Lee J-Y. Colistin resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014; 44:8–15.

        A study reviewing epidemiology, mechanisms, and treatment strategies for colistin-resistant K. pneumoniae isolates.

        21. Kollef MH. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials and the treatment of serious bacterial infections: getting it right up front. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2008; 47 (Suppl 1):S3–13.
        22. Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, et al. Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2002; 122:262–268.
        23. Kuti EL, Patel AA, Coleman CI. Impact of inappropriate antibiotic therapy on mortality in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia and blood stream infection: a meta-analysis. J Crit Care 2008; 23:91–100.
        24. 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; 27:355–362.
        25. 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; 171:388–416.
        26. Restrepo MI, Peterson J, Fernandez JF, et al. 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; 58:1220–1225.
        27. Martin-Loeches I, Deja M, Koulenti D, et al. Potentially resistant microorganisms in intubated patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia: the interaction of ecology, shock and risk factors. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39:672–681.
        28. Golia S, Sangeetha KT, Vasudha CL. Microbial profile of early and late onset ventilator associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital in Bangalore, India. J Clin Diagn Res 2013; 7:2462–2466.
        29. Koulenti D, Lisboa T, Brun-Buisson C, et al. Spectrum of practice in the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in European intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2360–2368.
        30. Shorr AF, Zilberberg MD, Micek ST, Kollef MH. Prediction of infection due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by select risk factors for healthcare-associated pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168:2205–2210.
        31. Aliberti S, Di Pasquale M, Zanaboni AM, et al. Stratifying risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens in hospitalized patients coming from the community with pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2012; 54:470–478.
        32. Shindo Y, Ito R, Kobayashi D, et al. Risk factors for drug-resistant pathogens in community-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188:985–995.
        33. Maruyama T, Fujisawa T, Okuno M, et al. A new strategy for healthcare-associated pneumonia: a 2-year prospective multicenter cohort study using risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens to select initial empiric therapy. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2013; 57:1373–1383.
        34▪▪. Falcone M, Russo A, Giannella M, et al. Individualizing risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens in community-onset pneumonia. PloS One 2015; 10:e0119528.

        A prospective study describing a new score to identify patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk for MDR pathogens.

        35. Brito V, Niederman MS. Healthcare-associated pneumonia is a heterogeneous disease, and all patients do not need the same broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy as complex nosocomial pneumonia. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2009; 22:316–325.
        36. Klompas M, Kulldorff M, Platt R. Risk of misleading ventilator-associated pneumonia rates with use of standard clinical and microbiological criteria. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2008; 46:1443–1446.
        37▪▪. Ego A, Preiser J-C, Vincent J-L. Impact of diagnostic criteria on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2015; 147:347–355.

        A study evaluating the impact of six diagnostic criteria sets on incidence and mortality rates in VAP.

        38. Dennesen PJ, van der Ven AJ, Kessels AG, et al. Resolution of infectious parameters after antimicrobial therapy in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163:1371–1375.
        39. Charles MVP, Easow JM, Joseph NM, et al. Role of appropriate therapy in combating mortality among the ventilated patients. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR 2014; 8:DC01–03.
        40▪. Rhodes NJ, Richardson CL, Heraty R, et al. Unacceptably high error rates in Vitek 2 testing of cefepime susceptibility in extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:3757–3761.

        A study signaling the high error rate in Vitek testing of cefepime susceptibility in ESBL E. coli isolates.

        41. Sarikonda KV, Micek ST, Doherty JA, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization is a poor predictor of intensive care unit-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections requiring antibiotic treatment. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1991–1995.
        42. Dangerfield B, Chung A, Webb B, Seville MT. Predictive value of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal swab PCR assay for MRSA pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:859–864.
        43. Rimawi RH, Ramsey KM, Shah KB, Cook PP. Correlation between methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal sampling and S. aureus pneumonia in the medical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35:590–593.
        44. Trevino S. MRSA PCR on respiratory specimens from ventilated patients with suspected pneumonia: a potential tool for antimicrobial stewardship. Philadelphia, PA: Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting; 2014.
        45▪▪. May AK, Brady JS, Romano-Keeler J, et al. A pilot study of the non-invasive assessment of the lung microbiota as a potential tool for the early diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia. Chest 2014; 147:1494–1502.

        A study showing that bacterial DNA within exhaled breath condensate fluid increases prior to clinical suspicion of pneumonia and correlates with BAL.

        46. Waldeisen JR, Wang T, Mitra D, Lee LP. A real-time PCR antibiogram for drug-resistant sepsis. PloS One 2011; 6:e28528.
        47. Beuving J, Verbon A, Gronthoud FA, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility testing of grown blood cultures by combining culture and real-time polymerase chain reaction is rapid and effective. PloS One 2011; 6:e27689.
        48. Carbonnelle E, Beretti J-L, Cottyn S, et al. Rapid identification of Staphylococci isolated in clinical microbiology laboratories by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:2156–2161.
        49. Mellmann A, Bimet F, Bizet C, et al. High interlaboratory reproducibility of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry-based species identification of nonfermenting bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:3732–3734.
        50. Burnham C-AD, Frobel RA, Herrera ML, Wickes BL. Rapid ertapenem susceptibility testing and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase phenotype detection in Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates by use of automated microscopy of immobilized live bacterial cells. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52:982–986.
        51. Wallace M. Rapid identification of gram-negative bacteria in positive blood culture broth using a multiplex fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay and automated microscopy. Washington, DC: 54th Interscience on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 2014.
        52▪. Metzger S, Frobel RA, Dunne WM. Rapid simultaneous identification and quantitation of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa directly from bronchoalveolar lavage specimens using automated microscopy. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 79:160–165.

        A report describing the use of automated microscopy method in identifying S. aureus and P. aeruginosa in BAL samples.

        53. Douglas I. Rapid microbiological identification and major drug resistance phenotyping with novel multiplexed automated digital microscopy (MADM) for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance. Denver, CO; American Thoracic Society Meeting; 2011.
        54▪. Price CS, Kon SE, Metzger S. Rapid antibiotic susceptibility phenotypic characterization of Staphylococcus aureus using automated microscopy of small numbers of cells. J Microbiol Methods 2014; 98:50–58.

        A report describing the role of automated microscopy in defining S. aureus growth in the presence of antibiotics.

        55. Filipiak W, Sponring A, Baur MM, et al. Molecular analysis of volatile metabolites released specifically by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Microbiol 2012; 12:113.
        56. Dutta R, Hines EL, Gardner JW, Boilot P. Bacteria classification using Cyranose 320 electronic nose. Biomed Eng Online 2002; 1:4.
        57. Vazquez Guillamet C. Bacterial pathogen identification by volatile organic compounds in gas samples using optical spectra technology (mid-infrared incoherent cavity ring down spectroscopy). San Francisco, CA: American Thoracic Society Meeting; 2012.
        58. Humphreys L, Orme RML, Moore P, et al. Electronic nose analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Eur J Clin Invest 2011; 41:52–58.
        59▪. Bos LDJ, Martin-Loeches I, Kastelijn JB, et al. The volatile metabolic fingerprint of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40:761–762.

        A report on the use of electronic nose to diagnose VAP.

        60. Fowler SJ, Basanta-Sanchez M, Xu Y, et al. Surveillance for lower airway pathogens in mechanically ventilated patients by metabolomic analysis of exhaled breath: a case-control study. Thorax 2015; 70:320–325.
        61. Bos LDJ, Schultz MJ, Sterk PJ. Exhaled breath profiling for diagnosing acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMC Pulm Med 2014; 14:72.
        62. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Suarez D, et al. Effectiveness of treatments for severe sepsis: a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180:861–866.
        63▪. Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, et al. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:1749–1755.

        A study underscoring the importance of antibiotic administration within 1 h in severe sepsis and septic shock.

        64. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1589–1596.
        65. Chen C, Kollef MH. Conservative fluid therapy in septic shock: an example of targeted therapeutic minimization. Crit Care 2014; 18:481.
        66. Drusano GL, Liu W, Fikes S, et al. Interaction of drug- and granulocyte-mediated killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a murine pneumonia model. J Infect Dis 2014; 210:1319–1324.
        67. Valenza G, Seifert H, Decker-Burgard S, et al. Comparative Activity of Carbapenem Testing (COMPACT) study in Germany. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012; 39:255–258.
        68. Pea F. Plasma pharmacokinetics of antimicrobial agents in critically ill patients. Curr Clin Pharmacol 2013; 8:5–12.
        69. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14:498–509.
        70. Roberts JA, Lipman J. Optimal doripenem dosing simulations in critically ill nosocomial pneumonia patients with obesity, augmented renal clearance, and decreased bacterial susceptibility. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:489–495.
        71▪▪. Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2014; 58:1072–1083.

        A study looking at correlations between β-lactams’ levels and outcomes in critically ill patients.

        72. Mouton JW, Vinks AA. Continuous infusion of β-lactams. Curr Opin Crit Care 2007; 13:598–606.
        73. Hengzhuang W, Ciofu O, Yang L, et al. High β-lactamase levels change the pharmacodynamics of β-lactam antibiotics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:196–204.
        74. Roberts JA, Ulldemolins M, Roberts MS, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of beta-lactams in critically ill patients: proof of concept. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010; 36:332–339.
        75. Muller AE, Punt N, Mouton JW. Optimal exposures of ceftazidime predict the probability of microbiological and clinical outcome in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68:900–906.
        76. Muller AE, Punt N, Mouton JW. Exposure to ceftobiprole is associated with microbiological eradication and clinical cure in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:2512–2519.
        77. Li C, Du X, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Clinical pharmacodynamics of meropenem in patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51:1725–1730.
        78. Teo J, Liew Y, Lee W, Kwa AL-H. Prolonged infusion versus intermittent boluses of β-lactam antibiotics for treatment of acute infections: a meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014; 43:403–411.
        79. Roberts JA, Webb S, Paterson D, et al. A systematic review on clinical benefits of continuous administration of β-lactam antibiotics. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2071–2078.
        80. Kasiakou SK, Sermaides GJ, Michalopoulos A, et al. Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibiotics: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5:581–589.
        81. Chant C, Leung A, Friedrich JO. Optimal dosing of antibiotics in critically ill patients by using continuous/extended infusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2013; 17:R279.
        82. Falagas ME, Tansarli GS, Ikawa K, Vardakas KZ. Clinical outcomes with extended or continuous versus short-term intravenous infusion of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2013; 56:272–282.
        83. Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Davis JS, et al. Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis: a multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2013; 56:236–244.
        84. Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, et al. Linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled study. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2012; 54:621–629.
          85. Choi EY, Huh JW, Lim C-M, et al. Relationship between the MIC of vancomycin and clinical outcome in patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37:639–647.
          86. Haque NZ, Zuniga LC, Peyrani P, et al. Relationship of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration to mortality in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated pneumonia. Chest 2010; 138:1356–1362.
          87. Niederman MS, Chastre J, Solem CT, et al. Health economic evaluation of patients treated for nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of vancomycin and linezolid. Clin Ther 2014; 36:1233–1243e1.
          88▪. Patel DA, Shorr AF, Chastre J, et al. Modeling the economic impact of linezolid versus vancomycin in confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Crit Care 2014; 18:R157.

          A study showing the favorable cost effectiveness of linezolid compared with vancomycin.

          89. Patel DA, Michel A, Stephens J, et al. An economic model to compare linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Germany. Infect Drug Resist 2014; 7:273–280.
          90. Torres A, Rubinstein E, Corey GR, et al. Analysis of phase 3 telavancin nosocomial pneumonia data excluding patients with severe renal impairment and acute renal failure. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69:1119–1126.
          91. Corey GR, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, et al. Telavancin for hospital-acquired pneumonia: clinical response and 28-day survival. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:2030–2037.
          92. Rubinstein E, Lalani T, Corey GR, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2011; 52:31–40.
            93. Pasquale TR, Tan MJ, Trienski TL, File TM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia patients treated with ceftaroline: retrospective case series of 10 patients. J Chemother 2015; 27:29–34.
            94. Casapao AM, Davis SL, Barr VO, et al. Large retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:2541–2546.
            95. Awad SS, Rodriguez AH, Chuang Y-C, 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 Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2014; 59:51–61.
              96. Cai Y, Wang R, Liang B, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55:1162–1172.
              97. McGovern PC, Wible M, El-Tahtawy A, et al. All-cause mortality imbalance in the tigecycline phase 3 and 4 clinical trials. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013; 41:463–467.
              98. Prasad P, Sun J, Danner RL, Natanson C. Excess deaths associated with tigecycline after approval based on noninferiority trials. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2012; 54:1699–1709.
                99. Freire AT, Melnyk V, Kim MJ, et al. Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2010; 68:140–151.
                100. Ramirez J, Dartois N, Gandjini H, et al. 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; 57:1756–1762.
                101. Ambrose PG, Meagher AK, Passarell JA, et al. Application of patient population-derived pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships to tigecycline breakpoint determination for staphylococci and streptococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2009; 63:155–159.
                102. Anthony KB, Fishman NO, Linkin DR, et al. Clinical and microbiological outcomes of serious infections with multidrug-resistant gram-negative organisms treated with tigecycline. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2008; 46:567–570.
                  103. Kelesidis T, Karageorgopoulos DE, Kelesidis I, Falagas ME. Tigecycline for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: a systematic review of the evidence from microbiological and clinical studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62:895–904.
                  104. Sader HS, Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Jones RN. Variation in potency and spectrum of tigecycline activity against bacterial strains from U.S. medical centers since its approval for clinical use (2006 to 2012). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:2274–2280.
                  105. Paterson DL, Ko W-C, Von Gottberg A, et al. Antibiotic therapy for Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia: implications of production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2004; 39:31–37.
                    106. Kollef MH, Chastre J, Clavel M, et al. A randomized trial of 7-day doripenem versus 10-day imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care 2012; 16:R218.
                    107. Bulik CC, Nicolau DP. Double-carbapenem therapy for carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55:3002–3004.
                    108. Giamarellou H, Galani L, Baziaka F, Karaiskos I. Effectiveness of a double-carbapenem regimen for infections in humans due to carbapenemase-producing pandrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:2388–2390.
                    109. Garnacho-Montero J, Amaya-Villar R, Gutiérrez-Pizarraya A, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of the combination of colistin plus vancomycin for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Chemotherapy 2013; 59:225–231.
                    110▪▪. Valachis A, Samonis G, Kofteridis DP. The role of aerosolized colistin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:527–533.

                    A meta-analysis looking at the role of colistin in treatment of VAP.

                    111. Kallel H, Hergafi L, Bahloul M, et al. Safety and efficacy of colistin compared with imipenem in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a matched case-control study. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1162–1167.
                    112. Rosso-Fernández C, Garnacho-Montero J, Antonelli M, et al. MagicBullet study groupSafety and efficacy of colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia as part of a macro-project funded by the Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission studying off-patent antibiotics: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015; 16:102.
                      113. Chastre J, Wolff M, Fagon J-Y, et al. Comparison of 8 vs 15 days of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 290:2588–2598.
                      114. Capellier G, Mockly H, Charpentier C, et al. Early-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults randomized clinical trial: comparison of 8 versus 15 days of antibiotic treatment. PloS One 2012; 7:e41290.
                      115. Dimopoulos G, Poulakou G, Pneumatikos IA, et al. Short- vs long-duration antibiotic regimens for ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2013; 144:1759–1767.
                      116. Pugh R, Grant C, Cooke RP, Dempsey G. Short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; CD007577.
                      117. Raman K, Nailor MD, Nicolau DP, et al. Early antibiotic discontinuation in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia and negative quantitative bronchoscopy cultures. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:1656–1663.
                      Keywords:

                      antibiotics; rapid diagnostics; resistant pathogens; ventilator-associated pneumonia

                      Copyright © 2015 YEAR Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.