31.01.2013 Views

Role of the endotracheal tube in VAP - Assistance Publique ...

Role of the endotracheal tube in VAP - Assistance Publique ...

Role of the endotracheal tube in VAP - Assistance Publique ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Ventilator-Associated<br />

Pneumonia<br />

The role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>endotracheal</strong> <strong>tube</strong><br />

Dr Emmanuelle Girou<br />

Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil Cr Créteil teil<br />

<strong>Assistance</strong> <strong>Publique</strong> – Hôpitaux de Paris<br />

Université Universit Université Paris 12


<strong>VAP</strong><br />

Pathogenesis<br />

Estes et al.<br />

ICM 1995;21:365


Airway<br />

Colonisation<br />

Patients ventilated<br />

at least 5 days<br />

Girou et al.<br />

ICM 2004


Hanson et al.<br />

Endotracheal <strong>in</strong>tubation<br />

Celis et al.<br />

Endotracheal <strong>in</strong>tubation<br />

Goldmann et al.<br />

Endotracheal <strong>in</strong>tubation<br />

Cook et al.<br />

MV <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous 24h<br />

Van der Sar et al.<br />

Risk per day <strong>of</strong> MV<br />

Cunnion et al.<br />

MV more than one day<br />

Torres et al.<br />

MV more than 3 days<br />

Vanhems et al.<br />

MV more than 7 days<br />

Memish et al.<br />

MV more than 19 days<br />

First Risk Factor <strong>of</strong> <strong>VAP</strong>:<br />

Endotracheal <strong>in</strong>tubation<br />

Adjusted Odds<br />

Ratio (95%CI)<br />

5.2 (1.1-25.6)<br />

6.7 (4.1-10.9)<br />

7.0 (NA)<br />

2.28 (1.11-4.68)<br />

1.3 (1.0-1.6)<br />

12.1 (NA)<br />

1.17 (1.15-1.19)<br />

2.1 (1.3-3.4)<br />

10.2 (3.1-33.2)<br />

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13<br />

Girou. Cl<strong>in</strong> Pulm Med 2001


Pathogenesis<br />

Low level evidence


Mucus Shaver<br />

Kolobow et et al. al. Anes<strong>the</strong>siol 2005<br />

Every 6 hours, after suction<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Shaver<br />

72h MV<br />

New ETT<br />

Controls<br />

72h MV


Do not <strong>in</strong>tubate!<br />

<strong>in</strong>tubate <strong>in</strong>tubate!


Non<strong>in</strong>vasive Ventilation and <strong>VAP</strong> Prevention<br />

Essais randomisés<br />

Etudes de cohorte<br />

Brochard, 1995<br />

Kramer, 1995<br />

Antonelli, 1998<br />

Wood, 1998<br />

Confalonieri, 1999<br />

Antonelli, 2000<br />

Nava, 1998<br />

Guér<strong>in</strong>, 1997<br />

Nourd<strong>in</strong>e, 1999<br />

Girou, 2000<br />

Carlucci, 2001<br />

Toutes les études<br />

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50<br />

% de pneumopathies nosocomiales<br />

Girou 2002 (Masson Book)


Non<strong>in</strong>vasive Ventilation and<br />

Nosocomial Infections<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> nosocomial <strong>in</strong>fections<br />

25 CMV (n=50)<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

NP UTI CRI<br />

VNI (n=50)<br />

Girou et al. JAMA 2000


Secular Trends <strong>in</strong> Mortality<br />

and Use <strong>of</strong> NIV<br />

<strong>in</strong> COPD and Severe CPE<br />

Girou et al. JAMA 2003<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> patients<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> patients<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> patients<br />

100<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

50<br />

45<br />

40<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

40<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

1994<br />

(n=39)<br />

NIV use<br />

NIV Use use<br />

NI<br />

Nosocomial<br />

Infections<br />

ICU Mortality<br />

ICU<br />

Mortality<br />

1995<br />

(n=52)<br />

1996<br />

(n=64)<br />

1997<br />

(n=61)<br />

1998<br />

(n=70)<br />

1999<br />

(n=63)<br />

P


What Type <strong>of</strong><br />

Endotracheal Tube?


% d ’utilisation<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

Subglottic Secretions Suction<strong>in</strong>g<br />

0<br />

SSD Standard Equal use<br />

France (n=72)<br />

Canada (n=31)<br />

Cook et al. CCM<br />

Oct. 2000<br />

CDC Recommendation 2003


�� Mahul et al. Intensive Intensive Care Care Med Med 1992<br />

– Reduction <strong>VAP</strong> rates: 12,8% vs 29,1%, p 72h (n=150); Intermittent dra<strong>in</strong>age<br />

– Reduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>VAP</strong> rates: 6,4% vs 21,3%, p


Patient position


% d ’utilisation<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

Semirecumbent Body Position<br />

Semirec Sup<strong>in</strong>e equal use<br />

France (n=72)<br />

Canada (n=31)<br />

Cook et al. CCM<br />

Oct. 2000<br />

CDC Recommendation 2003


Sup<strong>in</strong>e body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia<br />

<strong>in</strong> mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised trial<br />

Drakulovic et al. Lancet. 1999;354:1851-8<br />

1999;354:1851<br />

1999;354:1851-8<br />

45°<br />

5% de PAVM 23% de PAVM<br />

-78%<br />

0°<br />

Drakulovic et al. Lancet 1999


Limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Drakulovic’s Study<br />

�� Documented <strong>VAP</strong>:<br />

– 2/39 vs 11/47: P=0.018<br />

– 3/40 vs 11/47: P=O.O77<br />

�� Semirecumbency was achieved and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed by<br />

dissem<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> protractors to bedside nurses,<br />

researcher measurements us<strong>in</strong>g a protractor 7–8 7 8 times<br />

per day <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g weekends, trunk position checks<br />

throughout <strong>the</strong> night by on-call on call physicians, notification<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research team about any position change, and<br />

frequent educational <strong>in</strong>-services.<br />

<strong>in</strong> services.


13/112 (10.7%) vs 8/109 (6.5%)<br />

P=0.381<br />

Van Nieuwenhoven et al. CCM 2006


The daily risk <strong>of</strong> <strong>VAP</strong> was reduced <strong>in</strong> both<br />

treatment groups compared with PLAC:<br />

- 65%


Conclusion<br />

��Measures Measures <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bundle:<br />

– Non <strong>in</strong>vasive ventilation<br />

– Oral decontam<strong>in</strong>ation with 2% chlorhexid<strong>in</strong>e<br />

– Endotracheal <strong>tube</strong> with microcuff<br />

– Adequate monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> cuff pressure<br />

– Procedures Procedures for for wean<strong>in</strong>g wean<strong>in</strong>g to to limit limit duration duration <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> MV MV<br />

– Optimal Optimal use use <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> sedation sedation<br />

– Semirecumbent position?<br />

– Subglottic dra<strong>in</strong>age?

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!