Evidence Hub

The Effect of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia on the Time-to-Extubation in Adult and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Raneem M. Turkistani, Afnan Aghashami, S. S. Badhduoh, R. T. Fadhel, Amani O Albaity, I. Malli, Sara Osman, Riyadh A Alshehri et al.

Cureus, 2024

367 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) ranks as a prominent hospital-acquired infection. VAP has been shown to have a detrimental impact on patients and healthcare facilities, leading to extended hospital stays, increased demands on medical resources, and higher financial expenses. This study aims to assess the influence of VAP on time-to-extubation and length of hospital stay (LOS) in patients requiring mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours in pediatric and adult intensive care units (ICU). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult and pediatric ICU patients admitted to King Abdul-Aziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from June 2016 to May 2020. The study encompassed ICU patients who required mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. Time-to-extubation and LOS were measured in days and compared between those who developed VAP and those who did not. A Kaplan-Meier curve was employed to estimate and compare both groups’ survival functions (time-to-event). Results: The study involved 367 subjects, with 226 adults and 141 pediatric patients. Among the 367 mechanically ventilated patients, 33 (8.99%) developed VAP during their ICU stay, with 9 of them being children. VAP patients experienced a significantly longer time to extubation than non-VAP patients (13.5 vs. six days, p<0.0001). Likewise, ICU stays for VAP patients were significantly longer than those for non-VAP patients (19.5 vs. 13 days, p<0.002). However, the mortality rate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 367 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free