Nosocomial Respiratory Infections

Published on 12/06/2015 by admin

Filed under Pulmolory and Respiratory

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 1 (2 votes)

This article have been viewed 2544 times

Chapter 27 Nosocomial Respiratory Infections

Epidemiology

Pathogenesis

Sources of Colonization

Etiologic Agents

Nosocomial respiratory infections may be caused by a variety of pathogens, and often more than one pathogen may be isolated. Microorganisms responsible for those infections differ according to the studied population, the duration of hospital stay, and the specific diagnostic methods used. Nosocomial respiratory infections are commonly caused by aerobic, gram-negative bacilli, such as P. aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, or Acinetobacter spp., whereas Streptococcus aureus is the predominant isolated gram-positive pathogen. In a recent report by Esperatti and colleagues, the etiology of nosocomial pneumonia was investigated for invasively versus noninvasively ventilated patients managed in the ICU. Of interest, no significant differences were found, except for a higher proportion of S. pneumoniae in the noninvasively ventilated patients. These results imply that prevalence rates for nosocomial pathogens are similar in intubated and nonintubated patients, and that the use of empirical therapy likely to be active against them is warranted.

Underlying diseases may predispose patients to infection with specific organisms. For instance, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk for Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, P. aeruginosa, or S. pneumoniae infections; patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are at higher risk for development of VAP caused by S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii. Finally, patients with traumatic injuries and neurologic disorders are at increased risk for S. aureus, Haemophilus, and S. pneumoniae infections.

Identification of pathogens resistant to multiple drugs is extremely important, in order to guide appropriate antibiotic treatment. Potential MDR pathogens are P. aeruginosa, MRSA, Acinetobacter spp., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Burkholderia cepacia, and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing (ESBL-positive) K. pneumoniae. Conversely, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, methicillin-sensitive S. aureus, and antibiotic-sensitive Enterobacteriaceae organisms are not considered to be MDR pathogens. The incidence of MDR pathogens is closely linked to local factors and varies widely from one hospital to another. Accordingly, practitioners must be aware of the most prevalent microorganisms in their own clinical facilities and geographic regions to avoid the administration of initial inadequate antimicrobial therapy.

Legionella pneumophila as a cause of nosocomial pneumonia should be considered, particularly in immunocompromised patients. Anaerobes may potentially cause nosocomial infections, but often those pathogens are identified in association with aerobic pathogens, and their role is still considered controversial. Nosocomial infections are rarely caused by a fungus. Candida spp. and Aspergillus fumigatus are the most common isolated fungi, predominantly in immunocompromised patients. Finally, herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus (CMV) are the most common viruses identified as a cause of respiratory infections in hospitalized patients; of note, CMV pneumonia was found to be consistently associated with worse outcomes in patients managed in the ICU.

Prevention

Nosocomial respiratory infections are associated with high morbidity and mortality and constitute an important burden for the health care system; therefore, appropriate preventive strategies, summarized in Box 27-1, should be implemented to reduce overall incidence of those diseases. Approaches with proven efficacy in reduction of nosocomial respiratory infections should be grouped and implemented as a bundle, because together they are expected to result in a better outcome than when implemented individually.

General Prophylactic Measures

Maintaining high levels of current knowledge on pathophysiology of nosocomial infections and preventive strategies in clinical health care personnel can be effective in reducing incidence of those diseases. Respiratory care practitioners and nurses should be the primary recipients of ongoing education programs, and frequent performance feedback and compliance assessment should be undertaken.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has endorsed hand hygiene as the single most important element of strategies to prevent health care–associated infections. Overall, most of the studies conducted in ICUs have shown consistent reduction in nosocomial infection rates through implementation of alcohol-based hand hygiene.

Daily interruption or lightening of sedation, as a strategy to avoid consistent impairment of respiratory defenses, as well as the avoidance of paralytic agents, is highly recommended.

Diagnosis

Nosocomial pneumonia should be suspected in patients with a new or progressive infiltrate on lung imaging associated with at least two of the following clinical features:

The presence of these clinical signs, without a new infiltrate on the chest film, suggests nosocomial tracheobronchitis. In patients managed in the ICU, clinical signs suggestive of pneumonia often are too nonspecific to be of diagnostic value. Moreover, the chest radiograph often is difficult to interpret in those patients; indeed, when infiltrates are evident, it is challenging to differentiate among cardiogenic and noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, pulmonary contusion, atelectasis, and pneumonia. Clinical variables often are evaluated as a group, to improve specificity of the clinical diagnosis. The Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) is based on clinical assessments, pulmonary radiographic findings, and semiquantitative culture of tracheal aspirate, each worth between 0 and 2 points (Table 27-1). A minimum value of 6 is the threshold to identify patients with pneumonia. Nevertheless, the value of CPIS remains to be validated in a large prospective study, especially in patients with bilateral pulmonary infiltrates.

The presence of bacteria in the lower airways of intubated patients is not sufficient to diagnose true lung infection, because the tracheobronchial tree of mechanically ventilated patients frequently is colonized by enteric gram-negative bacilli. Many sampling procedures are available, such as sputum collection, endotracheal aspiration, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and protected specimen brush (PSB) procedures. In addition, several microbiologic techniques can be used, including Gram staining and intracellular organism count from specimens obtained by tracheal aspiration and BAL. Each diagnostic technique has advantages and limitations and provides different levels of diagnostic specificity and sensitivity.

Qualitative cultures of endotracheal aspirates yield a high percentage of false-positive results owing to frequent bacterial colonization of the proximal airways. Conversely, quantitative culture techniques of endotracheal aspirates may have an acceptable overall diagnostic accuracy. When patients develop pneumonia, pathogens are present in the lower respiratory tract secretions at concentrations of at least 105 to 106 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, and contaminants generally are present at less than 104 CFU/mL. The current proposed VAP diagnostic threshold is 106, 104, and 103 CFU/mL for tracheal aspirates, BAL fluid, and PSB samples, respectively. Likewise, in a patient without radiographic pulmonary infiltrates, tracheal aspirates colonized at a concentration of at least 106 CFU/mL may suggest tracheobronchitis.

Diagnostic Strategies for Nosocomial Respiratory Infection

An ideal diagnostic strategy for patients suspected on clinical grounds to have nosocomial respiratory infection should achieve the following objectives:

The diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia begins with clinical suspicion triggered by suggestive findings. The presence of a new or progressively worsening radiographic infiltrate plus clinical criteria constitutes a firm basis for further investigation. Either of two diagnostic algorithms can be used: clinical or bacteriologic. The clinical approach recommends treating every patient suspected to have a pulmonary infection with new antibiotics even when the likelihood of infection is low (Figure 27-1). Nevertheless, samples of respiratory secretions such as endotracheal aspirate or sputum should be obtained before the initiation of antibiotic treatment. In this strategy, the selection of appropriate empirical therapy is based on risk factors and local resistance patterns. The etiology in each case of pneumonia is defined by semiquantitative cultures of endotracheal aspirates or sputum, often with additional microscopic examination of the Gram stain. Antimicrobial therapy is adjusted according to culture results or clinical response. Semiquantitative culture of tracheal aspirates has the advantage that no specialized microbiologic techniques are required, and the sensitivity is high. This clinical strategy provides antimicrobial treatment to a majority of the patients with suspected pneumonia and yields a low rate of false-negative results. Still, if the tracheal aspirate culture does not demonstrate pathogens and the patient has not received new antibiotics within the previous 72 hours, the diagnosis of pneumonia is unlikely. The main drawback of this strategy is that the high sensitivity of semiquantitative cultures of tracheal aspirates leads to overtreatment, with institution of unnecessary antibiotics in patients with false-positive results.

image

Figure 27-1 Clinical noninvasive strategy for the diagnosis and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). LRT, lower respiratory tract.

(Modified from American Thoracic Society: Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia, Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:388–416, 2005.)

The bacteriologic strategy is based on the results of quantitative cultures of lower respiratory secretions (Figure 27-2). The procedure used to collect the samples (endotracheal aspirate, BAL fluid, or PSB) may be invasive (bronchoscopic) or noninvasive (blind procedures). The strategy reduces risks for overuse of antibiotics, because quantitative cultures yield fewer microorganisms above the threshold in comparison with semiquantitative cultures. Among the disadvantages of the bacteriologic strategy is the possibility of obtaining false-negative results, which leads to delayed antibiotic treatment in patients with pneumonia. Moreover, results obtained using the microbiology strategy may lack reproducibility, and often no microbiologic information is available at the time of initiation of empirical antibiotic therapy.

image

Figure 27-2 Invasive and quantitative culturing strategy for the diagnosis and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). ATB, antibiotic; BAL, bronchoalveolar lavage; BAS, bronchial aspiration; PSB, protected specimen brushing.

(Modified from American Thoracic Society: Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia, Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:388–416, 2005.)

Treatment

Once the clinical decision to initiate antimicrobial therapy for nosocomial respiratory infection has been made, the following issues should be considered, both to achieve the best antimicrobial efficacy and to reduce overuse of antibiotics:

An important point is that the indiscriminate administration of antimicrobial agents may contribute to the emergence of multiresistant pathogens and increase the risk of severe superinfections with increased morbidity and mortality, as well as exposing the patient to antibiotic-related adverse effects and higher costs. On the other hand, correct and prompt treatment of nosocomial respiratory infections results in better patient survival.

Choice of the Empirical Antimicrobials Likely to be Active Against Causative Microorganisms

The latest guidelines of the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) for the management of adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia recommend that the selection of empirical antibiotic therapy for each patient should be based on the timing of onset and presence of risk factors for MDR pathogens—antimicrobial therapy in preceding 90 days; current hospitalization of 5 days or more; high frequency of antibiotic resistance in the community or in the specific hospital unit; hospitalization for 2 days or longer within the preceding 90-day period; residence in a nursing home or extended care facility; home infusion therapy (including antibiotics); chronic dialysis within 30 days; home wound care; MDR pathogen carrier status or infection in a family member; and immunosuppressive disease and/or therapy. The antibiotics recommended in the current ATS/IDSA guidelines are shown in Tables 27-2 and 27-3. Broad-spectrum empirical antibiotic therapy should be rapidly deescalated as soon as microbiologic data become available, to limit the emergence of resistance in the hospital.

Table 27-2 Initial Empirical Antibiotic Treatment in Nosocomial and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia of Early Onset in Patients Without Risk Factors for Infection by Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens

Probable Pathogen Recommended Antibiotic
Streptococcus pneumoniae Ceftriaxone
Haemophilus influenzae OR
Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus Levofloxacin, moxifloxacin
OR
Ampicillin/sulbactam
OR
Ertapenem
Enteric gram-negative bacilli
Escherichia coli
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Enterobacter spp.
Proteus spp.
Serratia marcescens

Modified from American Thoracic Society: Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia, Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:388–416, 2005.

Table 27-3 Initial Empirical Antibiotic Treatment for Nosocomial and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia of Late Onset or in Patients with Risk Factors for Infection by Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens and Any Degree of Severity

Probable Pathogen Combined Antibiotic Treatment
Microorganisms from Table 27-2 PLUS: Antipseudomonal cephalosporin (ceftazidime or cefepime)
OR
Carbapenem (imipenem, meropenem)
OR
Beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor (piperacillin-tazobactam)
+
Antipseudomonal fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin)§
OR
Aminoglycoside§ (amikacin)
±
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-positive)*
Acinetobacter spp.*
Other nonfermenting GNB
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Legionella pneumophila
Linezolid or vancomycin

ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; GNB, gram-negative bacilli; ICU, intensive care unit.

* If an ESBL-positive strain such as K. pneumoniae, or Acinetobacter, is suspected, a carbepenem is the agent of first choice.

If L. pneumophila is the suspected pathogen, the combination antibiotic regimen should include a macrolide (e.g., azithromycin), or a fluoroquinolone (e.g., ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin) should be used rather than an aminoglycoside.

The choice of beta-lactam is made as follows: Patients who have not received any antipseudomonal beta-lactam within the last 30 days should be administered piperacillin-tazobactam or an antipseudomonal cephalosporin. Patients who have received these drugs should be given empirical therapy with a carbapenem. Patients with infection by ESBL-producing microorganisms should be treated with carbapenem regardless of the results of the antibiogram.

§ For combined empirical therapy for multidrug-resistant GNB, an antipseudomonal fluoroquinolone should be given in cases of renal failure or with concomitant use of vancomycin. In other settings, combined empirical therapy with amikacin is initiated and maintained for a 5-day period.

Empirical therapy aimed against MRSA is initiated in patients with proven colonization, previous infection by this microorganism, or implementation of mechanical ventilation for more than 6 days. The antibiotic of choice is either vancomycin (except in persons allergic to this medication, those with serum creatinine values of 1.6 mg/dL or greater, or patients presenting with signs of empirical treatment failure after 48 hours of antibiotic therapy) or linezolid. NOTE: For epidemiologic surveillance, nasal and perineal cultures should be performed on admission and at 1-week intervals thereafter during the ICU stay.

Modifications of Therapy and Duration of Treatment

After 72 hours, treatment should be adjusted in accordance with the microbiologic results. The initial beta-lactam should be continued if the microorganism is susceptible to the empirical beta-lactam originally prescribed. If it is not, another beta-lactam, possibly a carbapenem, may be introduced. The empirical antibiotic active against MRSA should be discontinued if the presence of this pathogen is not confirmed by cultures. Discontinuation of the fluoroquinolone and especially the aminoglycoside should be considered after 3 to 5 days of treatment. The bactericidal activity of aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones leads to a rapid reduction in the bacterial load during the first days of treatment. Thereafter, monotherapy may be sufficient. This approach would decrease emergence of resistant mutants and minimize nephrotoxicity caused by aminoglycosides.

A majority of infections can be effectively treated with regimens lasting up to 8 days. Four special situations may justify prolonged treatment: (1) infection by microorganisms that may multiply in the cellular cytoplasm, such as Legionella spp.; (2) the presence of biofilms or prosthetic devices; (3) the development of tissue necrosis, the formation of abscesses, or infection within a closed cavity, such as empyema; and (4) persistence of the original infection (such as with perforation or endocarditis). If the clinical course from the pneumonia is favorable within the first 3 to 5 days of antimicrobial therapy, treatment may be withdrawn after the completion of 8 days. In cases of pneumonia produced by nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli, the eradication of these microorganisms from the bronchial secretion can be achieved with a longer regimen of up to 14 days.

In patients originally suspected on clinical grounds to have ICU-acquired pneumonia but whose CPIS is lower than 6 on the third day of drug therapy, treatment may be withdrawn. In this setting, the patient probably did not have pneumonia, or the pneumonia was sufficiently mild that prolonged antibiotic treatment is not required (Figure 27-4).

Suggested Readings

American Thoracic Society. 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.

The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A randomized trial of diagnostic techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2619–2630.

Craven DE, Hjalmarson KI. Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and pneumonia: thinking outside the box. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(Suppl 1):S59–S66.

Esperatti M, Ferrer M, Theessen A, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit acquired by mechanically ventilated versus nonventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:1533–1539.

Kollef MH, Afessa B, Anzueto A, et al. Silver-coated endotracheal tubes and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: the NASCENT randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;300:805–813.

Lacherade JC, De Jonghe B, Guezennec P, et al. Intermittent subglottic secretion drainage and ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:910–917.

Rello J, Sa-Borges M, Correa H, et al. Variations in etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia across four treatment sites: implications for antimicrobial prescribing practices. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:608–613.

Schweickert WD, Gehlbach BK, Pohlman AS, et al. Daily interruption of sedative infusions and complications of critical illness in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1272–1276.

Torres A, Ewig S, Lode H, Carlet J, European HAP Working Group. Defining, treating and preventing hospital acquired pneumonia: European perspective. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:9–29.

Vincent JL, Rello J, Marshall J, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA. 2009;302:2323–2329.