Evidence Hub

Comparison between the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score and Modified Centre for Disease Control Criteria for Diagnosis of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Cross-sectional Study

A. Debnath, Saikat Batabyal, S. Tapadar, A. Chaudhuri

Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 2025

60 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is a frequent complication of Mechanical Ventilation (MV). The incidence of VAP is not precisely known and ranges from 13 to 51 per 1,000 ventilator days. A uniform surveillance definition for VAP is not available. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC)/ National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) algorithms are widely used.

Aim: To compare the modified CDC criteria and the CPIS algorithm for VAP.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the respiratory care unit of the Department of Respiratory Medicine at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India, over a period of 18 months, from January 2021 to June 2022. A total of 60 adult patients on MV for more than 48 hours, with a high index of suspicion for VAP, clinically and radiologically, were included in this study. The microbiological (bacteriological quantitative culture) and radiological profiles {CXR parenchymal opacities, Ultrasonography (USG) and Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) thorax} of VAP infections were assessed and compared. Statistical analysis was conducted after entering the data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Results: Among the 60 patients, most were male (76.67%) and aged between 51 and 60 years (40%). A total of 48 (80%) patients had a positive CPIS score, while 42 (70%) had positive modified CDC criteria. A fair degree of concordance was found…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 60 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