Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 2528  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    


CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 55  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 122-128

Prevention and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A survey on current practices by intensivists practicing in the Indian subcontinent


Department of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Deven Juneja
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, 1, Press Enclave Road, Saket, New Delhi - 17
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.79889

Rights and Permissions

Implementation of evidence-based guidelines to prevent and manage ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the clinical setting may not be adequate. We aimed to assess the implementation of selected VAP prevention strategies, and to learn how VAP is managed by the intensivists practicing in the Indian Subcontinent. Three hundred 10-point questionnaires were distributed during an International Critical Care Conferenceheld at New Delhi in 2009. A total of 126 (42%) questionnaires distributed among delegates from India, Nepal and Sri Lanka were analyzed. Majority (96.8%) reported using VAP bundles with a high proportion including head elevation (98.4%), chlorhexidine mouthcare (83.3%), stress ulcer prophylaxis (96.8%), heat and moisture exchangers (HME, 92.9%), early weaning (94.4%), and hand washing (97.6%) as part of their VAP bundle. Use of subglottic secretion drainage (SSD, 45.2%) and closed suction systems (CSS, 74.6%) was also reported by many intensivists, whereas use of selective gut decontamination was reported by only 22.2%. Commonest method for sampling was endotracheal suction by 68.3%. Gram negative organisms were reported to be the most commonly isolated. Majority (39.7%) reported using proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis and 84.1% believed that VAP contributed to increased mortality. De-escalating therapy was considered in patients responding to treatment by 57.9% and 65.9% considered adding empirical methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)coverage, while 63.5% considered adding nebulized antibiotics in certain high-risk patients. There was good concordance regarding VAP prophylaxis among the intensivists with a majority adhering to evidence-based guidelines. We could identify certain issues like the choice of agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis, use of HME filters, SSD and CSS, where there still exists some practice variability and opportunities for improvement.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5772    
    Printed178    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded1832    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal