↓ Skip to main content

Ventilator-associated respiratory infection in a resource-restricted setting: impact and etiology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ventilator-associated respiratory infection in a resource-restricted setting: impact and etiology
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0266-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vu Dinh Phu, Behzad Nadjm, Nguyen Hoang Anh Duy, Dao Xuan Co, Nguyen Thi Hoang Mai, Dao Tuyet Trinh, James Campbell, Dong Phu Khiem, Tran Ngoc Quang, Huynh Thi Loan, Ha Son Binh, Quynh-Dao Dinh, Duong Bich Thuy, Huong Nguyen Phu Lan, Nguyen Hong Ha, Ana Bonell, Mattias Larsson, Hoang Minh Hoan, Đang Quoc Tuan, Hakan Hanberger, Hoang Nguyen Van Minh, Lam Minh Yen, Nguyen Van Hao, Nguyen Gia Binh, Nguyen Van Vinh Chau, Nguyen Van Kinh, Guy E. Thwaites, Heiman F. Wertheim, H. Rogier van Doorn, C. Louise Thwaites

Abstract

Ventilator-associated respiratory infection (VARI) is a significant problem in resource-restricted intensive care units (ICUs), but differences in casemix and etiology means VARI in resource-restricted ICUs may be different from that found in resource-rich units. Data from these settings are vital to plan preventative interventions and assess their cost-effectiveness, but few are available. We conducted a prospective observational study in four Vietnamese ICUs to assess the incidence and impact of VARI. Patients ≥ 16 years old and expected to be mechanically ventilated > 48 h were enrolled in the study and followed daily for 28 days following ICU admission. Four hundred fifty eligible patients were enrolled over 24 months, and after exclusions, 374 patients' data were analyzed. A total of 92/374 cases of VARI (21.7/1000 ventilator days) were diagnosed; 37 (9.9%) of these met ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) criteria (8.7/1000 ventilator days). Patients with any VARI, VAP, or VARI without VAP experienced increased hospital and ICU stay, ICU cost, and antibiotic use (p < 0.01 for all). This was also true for all VARI (p < 0.01 for all) with/without tetanus. There was no increased risk of in-hospital death in patients with VARI compared to those without (VAP HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.75-3.33, p = 0.23; VARI without VAP HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.14-1.17, p = 0.09). In patients with positive endotracheal aspirate cultures, most VARI was caused by Gram-negative organisms; the most frequent were Acinetobacter baumannii (32/73, 43.8%) Klebsiella pneumoniae (26/73, 35.6%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (24/73, 32.9%). 40/68 (58.8%) patients with positive cultures for these had carbapenem-resistant isolates. Patients with carbapenem-resistant VARI had significantly greater ICU costs than patients with carbapenem-susceptible isolates (6053 USD (IQR 3806-7824) vs 3131 USD (IQR 2108-7551), p = 0.04) and after correction for adequacy of initial antibiotics and APACHE II score, showed a trend towards increased risk of in-hospital death (HR 2.82, 95% CI 0.75-6.75, p = 0.15). VARI in a resource-restricted setting has limited impact on mortality, but shows significant association with increased patient costs, length of stay, and antibiotic use, particularly when caused by carbapenem-resistant bacteria. Evidence-based interventions to reduce VARI in these settings are urgently needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Lecturer 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,063,680
of 24,292,134 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#100
of 547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,365
of 448,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,292,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.