Ats-Idsa 2016 Hap Vap

Clinical
Clinical Infectious Infectious Diseases Advance Access published July 14, 2016
Diseases
IDSA GUIDELINE
Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and

Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice
Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America
and the American Thoracic Society
Andre C. Kalil,1,a Mark L. Metersky,2,a Michael Klompas,3,4 John Muscedere,5 Daniel A. Sweeney,6 Lucy B. Palmer,7 Lena M. Napolitano,8 Naomi P. O’Grady,9
John G. Bartlett,10 Jordi Carratalà,11 Ali A. El Solh,12 Santiago Ewig,13 Paul D. Fey,14 Thomas M. File Jr,15 Marcos I. Restrepo,16 Jason A. Roberts,17,18
Grant W. Waterer,19 Peggy Cruse,20 Shandra L. Knight,20 and Jan L. Brozek21
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha; 2Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Connecticut
School of Medicine, Farmington; 3Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and 4Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; 5Department of Medicine,
Critical Care Program, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; 6Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California, San Diego; 7Department of Medicine,
Division of Pulmonary Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook; 8Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Critical Care and Emergency Surgery,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 9Department of Critical Care Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, and 10Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;
11
Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases, University of Barcelona,
Spain; 12Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University at Buffalo, Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System, New York;
Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

13
Thoraxzentrum Ruhrgebiet, Department of Respiratory and Infectious Diseases, EVK Herne and Augusta-Kranken-Anstalt Bochum, Germany; 14Department of Pathology and Microbiology,
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha; 15Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; 16Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, South Texas Veterans
Health Care System and University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; 17Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 18Royal Brisbane and
Women’s Hospital, Queensland, and 19School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; 20Library and Knowledge Services, National Jewish Health,
Denver, Colorado; and 21Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to
supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these
guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light
of each patient’s individual circumstances.
These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia
(HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and
surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial
pneumonia. The panel’s recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from
topic-specific systematic literature reviews.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY all available evidence (Table 1) [2]; the removal of the concept
In this 2016 guideline, the term “hospital-acquired pneumo- of healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP); and the recom-
nia” (HAP) denotes an episode of pneumonia not associated mendation that each hospital generate antibiograms to guide
with mechanical ventilation. Thus, patients with HAP and healthcare professionals with respect to the optimal choice of
ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) belong to 2 distinct antibiotics. In an effort to minimize patient harm and expo-
groups. The major differences between this guideline and sure to unnecessary antibiotics and reduce the development of
the 2005 version [1] include the following: the use of the antibiotic resistance, we recommend that the antibiogram
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development data be utilized to decrease the unnecessary use of dual
and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for the evaluation of gram-negative and empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus (MRSA) antibiotic treatment. We also recommend
short-course antibiotic therapy for most patients with HAP or
VAP independent of microbial etiology, as well as antibiotic
Received 17 May 2016; accepted 18 May 2016. de-escalation.
a
A. C. K. and M. L. M. contributed equally to this work.
Correspondence: A. C. Kalil, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseas-
Summarized below are the recommendations made in
es, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-5400 (akalil@unmc.edu). the 2016 guideline. A detailed description of the methods,
Clinical Infectious Diseases® background, and evidence summaries that support each of
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society
of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.
the recommendations can be found in the full text of this
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw353 guideline.
Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 1

Table 1. Interpretation of Strong and Weak (Conditional) Recommendations Remarks: Clinical factors should also be considered because
they may alter the decision of whether to withhold or contin-
Weak (Conditional)
ue antibiotics. These include the likelihood of an alternative
Strong Recommendation Recommendation
source of infection, prior antimicrobial therapy at the time of
Patients Most individuals in this The majority of individuals in
situation would want the this situation would want culture, degree of clinical suspicion, signs of severe sepsis,
recommended course of the suggested course of
action, and only a small action, but many would
and evidence of clinical improvement.
proportion would not. not.
Clinicians Most individuals should Recognize that different
receive the intervention. choices will be appropriate
III. In Patients With Suspected HAP (Non-VAP), Should Treatment Be
Adherence to this for individual patients and Guided by the Results of Microbiologic Studies Performed on
recommendation that you must help each Respiratory Samples, or Should Treatment Be Empiric?
according to the guideline patient arrive at a
could be used as a quality management decision Recommendation
criterion or performance consistent with his or her
indicator. Formal decision values and preferences. 1. We suggest that patients with suspected HAP (non-VAP) be
aids are not likely to be Decision aids may be
needed to help individuals useful in helping treated according to the results of microbiologic studies per-
make decisions consistent individuals to make
with their values and decisions consistent with
formed on respiratory samples obtained noninvasively, rath-
preferences. their values and er than being treated empirically (weak recommendation,
preferences.
very low-quality evidence).
Policy makers The recommendation can be Policymaking will require
adopted as policy in most substantial debate and Values and Preferences: The suggestion places a high value
situations. involvement of various
stakeholders. on the potential to accurately target antibiotic therapy and

then deescalate antibiotic therapy based upon respiratory
MICROBIOLOGIC METHODS TO DIAGNOSE VAP AND and blood culture results. Minimizing resource use by not
HAP obtaining respiratory cultures is given a lower value.
I. Should Patients With Suspected VAP Be Treated Based on the Results Remarks: Noninvasive methods to obtain respiratory sam-
of Invasive Sampling (ie, Bronchoscopy, Blind Bronchial Sampling) ples include the following: spontaneous expectoration, spu-
With Quantitative Culture Results, Noninvasive Sampling (ie, tum induction, nasotracheal suctioning in a patient who is
Endotracheal Aspiration) With Quantitative Culture Results, or unable to cooperate to produce a sputum sample, and endo-
Noninvasive Sampling With Semiquantitative Culture Results?
tracheal aspiration in a patient with HAP who subsequently
Recommendation
requires mechanical ventilation. The panel recognizes that
1. We suggest noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures for some patients in whom a respiratory sample cannot be
to diagnose VAP, rather than invasive sampling with quantitative obtained noninvasively, there may be factors which could
cultures and rather than noninvasive sampling with quantitative prompt consideration of obtaining samples invasively.
cultures (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).
Remarks: Invasive respiratory sampling includes broncho-
THE USE OF BIOMARKERS AND THE CLINICAL
scopic techniques (ie, bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL], protect-
PULMONARY INFECTION SCORE TO DIAGNOSE
ed specimen brush [PSB]) and blind bronchial sampling VAP AND HAP
(ie, mini-BAL). Noninvasive respiratory sampling refers to
endotracheal aspiration. IV. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should Procalcitonin (PCT)
Plus Clinical Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone Be Used to Decide
Whether or Not to Initiate Antibiotic Therapy?
II. If Invasive Quantitative Cultures Are Performed, Should Patients With Recommendation
Suspected VAP Whose Culture Results Are Below the Diagnostic Threshold
for VAP (PSB With <103 Colony-Forming Units [CFU]/mL, BAL With <104 CFU/ 1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we recommend using
mL) Have Their Antibiotics Withheld Rather Than Continued? clinical criteria alone, rather than using serum PCT plus clinical
Recommendation criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic therapy
1. Noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures is the (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
preferred methodology to diagnose VAP (see section I); how-
ever, the panel recognizes that invasive quantitative cultures V. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should Soluble Triggering
will occasionally be performed by some clinicians. For pa- Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells (sTREM-1) Plus Clinical Criteria
tients with suspected VAP whose invasive quantitative cul- or Clinical Criteria Alone Be Used to Decide Whether or Not to Initiate
Antibiotic Therapy?
ture results are below the diagnostic threshold for VAP, we
Recommendation
suggest that antibiotics be withheld rather than continued
(weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence). 1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we recommend
Values and Preferences: This recommendation places a high using clinical criteria alone, rather than using bronchoalveo-
value on avoiding unnecessary harm and cost. lar lavage fluid (BALF) sTREM-1 plus clinical criteria, to
2 • CID • Kalil et al
decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic therapy (strong X. What Antibiotics Are Recommended for Empiric Treatment of
recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinically Suspected VAP?
Recommendations (See Table 3 for Specific Antibiotic
Recommendations)
VI. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should C-Reactive Protein
(CRP) Plus Clinical Criteria, or Clinical Criteria Alone, Be Used to
Decide Whether or Not to Initiate Antibiotic Therapy? 1. In patients with suspected VAP, we recommend including
Recommendation coverage for S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and other
1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we recommend gram-negative bacilli in all empiric regimens (strong recom-
using clinical criteria alone rather than using CRP mendation, low-quality evidence).
plus clinical criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate i. We suggest including an agent active against MRSA for the
antibiotic therapy (weak recommendation, low-quality empiric treatment of suspected VAP only in patients with
evidence). any of the following: a risk factor for antimicrobial resistance
(Table 2), patients being treated in units where >10%–20%
of S. aureus isolates are methicillin resistant, and patients in
VII. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should the Modified Clinical
Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) Plus Clinical Criteria, or Clinical units where the prevalence of MRSA is not known (weak
Criteria Alone, Be Used to Decide Whether or Not to Initiate Antibiotic recommendation, very low-quality evidence).
Therapy? ii. We suggest including an agent active against methicillin-
Recommendation sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) (and not MRSA) for the empiric

1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we suggest using treatment of suspected VAP in patients without risk factors
clinical criteria alone, rather than using CPIS plus clinical for antimicrobial resistance, who are being treated in ICUs
criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic therapy where <10%–20% of S. aureus isolates are methicillin resis-
(weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). tant (weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence).
2. If empiric coverage for MRSA is indicated, we recommend
either vancomycin or linezolid (strong recommendation,
TREATMENT OF VENTILATOR-ASSOCIATED
moderate-quality evidence).
TRACHEOBRONCHITIS
3. When empiric treatment that includes coverage for MSSA
VIII. Should Patients With Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis (and not MRSA) is indicated, we suggest a regimen including
(VAT) Receive Antibiotic Therapy? piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, imipenem,
Recommendation or meropenem (weak recommendation, very low-quality evi-
1. In patients with VAT, we suggest not providing antibiotic dence). Oxacillin, nafcillin, or cefazolin are preferred agents
therapy (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). for treatment of proven MSSA, but are not necessary for
the empiric treatment of VAP if one of the above agents is
used.
INITIAL TREATMENT OF VAP AND HAP
4. We suggest prescribing 2 antipseudomonal antibiotics from
IX. Should Selection of an Empiric Antibiotic Regimen for VAP Be different classes for the empiric treatment of suspected VAP
Guided by Local Antibiotic-Resistance Data? only in patients with any of the following: a risk factor for
Recommendations
1. We recommend that all hospitals regularly generate and dis-

Table 2. Risk Factors for Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens
seminate a local antibiogram, ideally one that is specific to
their intensive care population(s) if possible. Risk factors for MDR VAP
2. We recommend that empiric treatment regimens be in- Prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 d
formed by the local distribution of pathogens associated Septic shock at time of VAP
with VAP and their antimicrobial susceptibilities. ARDS preceding VAP
Five or more days of hospitalization prior to the occurrence of VAP
Values and preferences: These recommendations place a high
Acute renal replacement therapy prior to VAP onset
value on targeting the specific pathogens associated with VAP Risk factors for MDR HAP
as narrowly as possible to assure adequate treatment while Prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 d
minimizing overtreatment and its undesirable consequences. Risk factors for MRSA VAP/HAP
Remarks: The frequency with which the distribution of path- Prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 d
Risk factors for MDR Pseudomonas VAP/HAP
ogens and their antimicrobial susceptibilities are updated
Prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 d
should be determined by the institution. Considerations
Abbreviations: ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; HAP, hospital-acquired
should include their rate of change, resources, and the amount
pneumonia; MDR, multidrug resistant; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus;
of data available for analysis. VAP, ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Table 3. Suggested Empiric Treatment Options for Clinically Suspected Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Units Where Empiric Methicillin-Resistant
Staphylococcus aureus Coverage and Double Antipseudomonal/Gram-Negative Coverage Are Appropriate
A. Gram-Positive Antibiotics With B. Gram-Negative Antibiotics With C. Gram-Negative Antibiotics With Antipseudomonal
MRSA Activity Antipseudomonal Activity: β-Lactam–Based Agents Activity: Non-β-Lactam–Based Agents
Glycopeptidesa Antipseudomonal penicillinsb Fluoroquinolones

Vancomycin 15 mg/kg IV q8–12h Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV q6hb Ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV q8h
(consider a loading dose of 25–30 Levofloxacin 750 mg IV q24h
mg/kg × 1 for severe illness)
OR OR OR
Oxazolidinones Cephalosporinsb Aminoglycosidesa,c
Linezolid 600 mg IV q12h Cefepime 2 g IV q8h Amikacin 15–20 mg/kg IV q24h
Ceftazidime 2 g IV q8h Gentamicin 5–7 mg/kg IV q24h
Tobramycin 5–7 mg/kg IV q24h
OR OR
Carbapenemsb Polymyxinsa,e
Imipenem 500 mg IV q6hd Colistin 5 mg/kg IV × 1 (loading dose) followed by 2.5
Meropenem 1 g IV q8h mg × (1.5 × CrCl + 30) IV q12h (maintenance dose) [135]
Polymyxin B 2.5–3.0 mg/kg/d divided in 2 daily IV doses
OR
Monobactamsf
Aztreonam 2 g IV q8h
Choose one gram-positive option from column A, one gram-negative option from column B, and one gram-negative option from column C. Note that the initial doses suggested in this table may
need to be modified for patients with hepatic or renal dysfunction.

Abbreviations: CrCl, creatinine clearance; IV, intravenous; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
a
Drug levels and adjustment of doses and/or intervals required.
b
Extended infusions may be appropriate. Please see section XIII on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic optimization of antibiotic therapy.
c
On meta-analysis, aminoglycoside regimens were associated with lower clinical response rates with no differences in mortality.
d
The dose may need to be lowered in patients weighing <70 kg to prevent seizures.
e
Polymyxins should be reserved for settings where there is a high prevalence of multidrug resistance and local expertise in using this medication. Dosing is based on colistin-base activity (CBA);
for example, One million IU of colistin is equivalent to about 30 mg of CBA, which corresponds to about 80 mg of the prodrug colistimethate. Polymyxin B (1 mg = 10 000 units) [136].
f
In the absence of other options, it is acceptable to use aztreonam as an adjunctive agent with another β-lactam–based agent because it has different targets within the bacterial cell wall [137].
antimicrobial resistance (Table 2), patients in units where whether or not to target MRSA and the 10% threshold for
>10% of gram-negative isolates are resistant to an agent deciding whether or not to prescribe 1 antipseudomonal
being considered for monotherapy, and patients in an ICU agent or 2 were chosen by the panel with a goal of trying
where local antimicrobial susceptibility rates are not available to assure that ≥95% of patient receive empiric therapy ac-
(weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). tive against their likely pathogens; when implementing
5. We suggest prescribing one antibiotic active against P. aer- these recommendations, individual ICUs may elect to mod-
uginosa for the empiric treatment of suspected VAP in pa- ify these thresholds. If patient has structural lung disease in-
tients without risk factors for antimicrobial resistance who creasing the risk of gram-negative infection (ie,
are being treated in ICUs where ≤10% of gram-negative iso- bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis), 2 antipseudomonal agents
lates are resistant to the agent being considered for mono- are recommended.
therapy (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).
6. In patients with suspected VAP, we suggest avoiding amino- XI. Should Selection of an Empiric Antibiotic Regimen for HAP
(Non-VAP) Be Guided by Local Antibiotic Resistance Data?
glycosides if alternative agents with adequate gram-negative
Recommendations
activity are available (weak recommendation, low-quality
evidence). 1. We recommend that all hospitals regularly generate and dis-
7. In patients with suspected VAP, we suggest avoiding colistin seminate a local antibiogram, ideally one that is tailored to
if alternative agents with adequate gram-negative activity are their HAP population, if possible.
available (weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence). 2. We recommend that empiric antibiotic regimens be based
Values and Preferences: These recommendations are a com- upon the local distribution of pathogens associated with
promise between the competing goals of providing early ap- HAP and their antimicrobial susceptibilities.
propriate antibiotic coverage and avoiding superfluous Remarks: The frequency with which the distribution of path-
treatment that may lead to adverse drug effects, Clostridium ogens and their antimicrobial susceptibilities are updated
difficile infections, antibiotic resistance, and increased cost. should be determined by the institution. Considerations
Remarks: Risk factors for antimicrobial resistance are pro- should include their rate of change, resources, and the
vided in Table 2. The 10%–20% threshold for deciding amount of data available for analysis.
XII. What Antibiotics Are Recommended for Empiric Treatment of antibiotic with activity against MRSA (weak recommenda-
Clinically Suspected HAP (Non-VAP)? tion, very low-quality evidence). (Risk factors for mortality
Recommendations (See Table 4 for Specific Antibiotic include need for ventilatory support due to HAP and septic
Recommendations)
shock).
1. For patients being treated empirically for HAP, we recom- ii. For patients with HAP who require empiric coverage for
mend prescribing an antibiotic with activity against S. aureus MRSA, we recommend vancomycin or linezolid rather
(strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence). (See than an alternative antibiotic (strong recommendation,
below for recommendations regarding empiric coverage of low-quality evidence).
MRSA vs MSSA.) iii. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirical-
i. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically ly and have no risk factors for MRSA infection and are
and have either a risk factor for MRSA infection (ie, not at high risk of mortality, we suggest prescribing an
prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 days, hospitali- antibiotic with activity against MSSA. When empiric treat-
zation in a unit where >20% of S. aureus isolates are meth- ment that includes coverage for MSSA (and not MRSA) is
icillin resistant, or the prevalence of MRSA is not known, or indicated, we suggest a regimen including piperacillin-tazo-
who are at high risk for mortality, we suggest prescribing an bactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, imipenem, or meropenem.
Table 4. Recommended Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (Non-Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia)

Not at High Risk of Mortalitya and no
Factors Increasing the Likelihood of Not at High Risk of Mortalitya but With Factors High Risk of Mortality or Receipt of Intravenous
MRSAb,c Increasing the Likelihood of MRSAb,c Antibiotics During the Prior 90 da,c
One of the following: One of the following: Two of the following, avoid 2 β-lactams:
Piperacillin-tazobactamd 4.5 g IV q6h Piperacillin-tazobactamd 4.5 g IV q6h Piperacillin-tazobactamd 4.5 g IV q6h
OR OR OR
Cefepimed 2 g IV q8h Cefepimed or ceftazidimed 2 g IV q8h Cefepimed or ceftazidimed 2 g IV q8h
OR OR OR
Levofloxacin 750 mg IV daily Levofloxacin 750 mg IV daily Levofloxacin 750 mg IV daily
Ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV q8h Ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV q8h
OR OR
Imipenemd 500 mg IV q6h Imipenemd 500 mg IV q6h Imipenemd 500 mg IV q6h
Meropenemd 1 g IV q8h Meropenemd 1 g IV q8h Meropenemd 1 g IV q8h
OR OR
Aztreonam 2 g IV q8h Amikacin 15–20 mg/kg IV daily
Gentamicin 5–7 mg/kg IV daily
Tobramycin 5–7 mg/kg IV daily
OR
Aztreoname 2 g IV q8h
Plus: Plus:
Vancomycin 15 mg/kg IV q8–12h with goal to target Vancomycin 15 mg/kg IV q8–12h with goal to target 15–20 mg/mL
15–20 mg/mL trough level (consider a loading trough level (consider a loading dose of 25–30 mg/kg IV × 1 for
dose of 25–30 mg/kg × 1 for severe illness) severe illness)
OR OR
Linezolid 600 mg IV q12h Linezolid 600 mg IV q12h
If MRSA coverage is not going to be used, include coverage for MSSA.
Options include:
Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, imipenem,
meropenem. Oxacillin, nafcillin, and cefazolin are preferred for the
treatment of proven MSSA, but would ordinarily not be used in an
empiric regimen for HAP.
If patient has severe penicillin allergy and aztreonam is going to be used
instead of any β-lactam–based antibiotic, include coverage for MSSA.
Abbreviations: HAP, hospital-acquired pneumonia; IV, intravenous; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.
a
Risk factors for mortality include need for ventilatory support due to pneumonia and septic shock.
b
Indications for MRSA coverage include intravenous antibiotic treatment during the prior 90 days, and treatment in a unit where the prevalence of MRSA among S. aureus isolates is not known
or is >20%. Prior detection of MRSA by culture or non-culture screening may also increase the risk of MRSA. The 20% threshold was chosen to balance the need for effective initial antibiotic
therapy against the risks of excessive antibiotic use; hence, individual units can elect to adjust the threshold in accordance with local values and preferences. If MRSA coverage is omitted, the
antibiotic regimen should include coverage for MSSA.
c
If patient has factors increasing the likelihood of gram-negative infection, 2 antipseudomonal agents are recommended. If patient has structural lung disease increasing the risk of gram-
negative infection (ie, bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis), 2 antipseudomonal agents are recommended. A high-quality Gram stain from a respiratory specimen with numerous and
predominant gram-negative bacilli provides further support for the diagnosis of a gram-negative pneumonia, including fermenting and non-glucose-fermenting microorganisms.
d
Extended infusions may be appropriate.
e
In the absence of other options, it is acceptable to use aztreonam as an adjunctive agent with another β-lactam–based agent because it has different targets within the bacterial cell wall [137].

Oxacillin, nafcillin, or cefazolin are preferred for the treat- value on improving clinical outcome by optimization of ther-
ment of proven MSSA, but are not necessary for empiric apy; it places a lower value on burden and cost.
coverage of HAP if one of the above agents is used (weak Remarks: PK/PD-optimized dosing refers to the use of anti-
recommendation, very low-quality evidence). biotic blood concentrations, extended and continuous infu-
2. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically, sions, and weight-based dosing for certain antibiotics.
we recommend prescribing antibiotics with activity against
P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli (strong recom-
ROLE OF INHALED ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY
mendation, very low-quality evidence).
XIV. Should Patients With VAP Due to Gram-Negative Bacilli Be Treated
i. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically
With a Combination of Inhaled and Systemic Antibiotics, or Systemic
and have factors increasing the likelihood for Pseudomo-
Antibiotics Alone?
nas or other gram-negative infection (ie, prior intravenous Recommendation
antibiotic use within 90 days; also see Remarks) or a high
risk for mortality, we suggest prescribing antibiotics from 1. For patients with VAP due to gram-negative bacilli that are
2 different classes with activity against P. aeruginosa (weak susceptible to only aminoglycosides or polymyxins (colistin
recommendation, very low-quality evidence). (Risk factors or polymyxin B), we suggest both inhaled and systemic anti-
for mortality include need for ventilatory support due biotics, rather than systemic antibiotics alone (weak recom-
to HAP and septic shock). All other patients with HAP mendation, very low-quality evidence).
who are being treated empirically may be prescribed a single Values and Preferences: This recommendation places a high

antibiotic with activity against P. aeruginosa. value on achieving clinical cure and survival; it places a lower
ii. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically, value on burden and cost.
we recommend not using an aminoglycoside as the sole Remarks: It is reasonable to consider adjunctive inhaled anti-
antipseudomonal agent (strong recommendation, very biotic therapy as a treatment of last resort for patients who are
low-quality evidence). not responding to intravenous antibiotics alone, whether the
Values and Preferences: These recommendations are a infecting organism is or is not multidrug resistant (MDR).
compromise between the competing goals of providing
early appropriate antibiotic coverage and avoiding super-
PATHOGEN-SPECIFIC THERAPY
fluous treatment that may lead to adverse drug effects,
C. difficile infections, antibiotic resistance, and increased cost. XV. What Antibiotics Should Be Used for the Treatment for MRSA
HAP/VAP?
Remarks: The 20% threshold for deciding whether or not
Recommendation
to target MRSA or MSSA was chosen in an effort to balance
the needforeffective initialantibiotictherapyagainst the risks 1. We recommend that MRSA HAP/VAP be treated with
of excessive antibiotic use; when implementing these recom- either vancomycin or linezolid rather than other antibiotics
mendations, individual units may elect to modify this thresh- or antibiotic combinations (strong recommendation, moder-
old. If patient has structural lung disease increasing the risk of ate-quality evidence).
gram-negative infection (ie, bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis), Remarks: The choice between vancomycin and linezolid may
2 antipseudomonal agents are recommended. A high-quality be guided by patient-specific factors such as blood cell
Gram stain from a respiratory specimen with numerous and counts, concurrent prescriptions for serotonin-reuptake in-
predominant gram-negative bacilli provides further support hibitors, renal function, and cost.
for the diagnosis of a gram-negative pneumonia, including
fermenting and non-glucose-fermenting microorganisms.
XVI. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP
Due to P. aeruginosa?
PHARMACOKINETIC/PHARMACODYNAMIC Recommendations
OPTIMIZATION OF ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY
XIII. Should Antibiotic Dosing Be Determined by Pharmacokinetic/ 1. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa, we recom-
Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Data or the Manufacturer’s Prescribing mend that the choice of an antibiotic for definitive (not empiric)
Information in Patients With HAP/VAP? therapy be based upon the results of antimicrobial susceptibi-
Recommendation lity testing (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).
1. For patients with HAP/VAP, we suggest that antibiotic dos- 2. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa, we recom-
ing be determined using PK/PD data, rather than the manu- mend against aminoglycoside monotherapy (strong recom-
facturer’s prescribing information (weak recommendation, mendation, very low-quality evidence).
very low-quality evidence). Remarks: Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing should
Values and Preferences: This recommendation places a high include assessment of the sensitivity of the P. aeruginosa
isolate to polymyxins (colistin or polymyxin B) in settings that 3. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species
have a high prevalence of extensively resistant organisms. that is sensitive only to colistin, we suggest not using adjunc-
tive rifampicin (weak recommendation, moderate-quality
XVII. Should Monotherapy or Combination Therapy Be Used to Treat evidence).
Patients With HAP/VAP Due to P. aeruginosa? 4. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species,
Recommendations we recommend against the use of tigecycline (strong recom-
1. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa who are mendation, low-quality evidence).
not in septic shock or at a high risk for death, and for Values and Preferences: These recommendations place a rela-
whom the results of antibiotic susceptibility testing are tively higher value on avoiding potential adverse effects due
known, we recommend monotherapy using an antibiotic to to the use of combination therapy with rifampicin and colistin,
which the isolate is susceptible rather than combination ther- over achieving an increased microbial eradication rate, as erad-
apy (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). ication rate was not associated with improved clinical outcome.
2. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa who re- Remarks: Selection of an appropriate antibiotic for definitive
main in septic shock or at a high risk for death when the re- (nonempiric) therapy requires antimicrobial susceptibility
sults of antibiotic susceptibility testing are known, we suggest testing.
combination therapy using 2 antibiotics to which the isolate
is susceptible rather than monotherapy (weak recommenda- XX. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP
Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Pathogens?
tion, very low-quality evidence).

Recommendation
3. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa, we recom-
mend against aminoglycoside monotherapy (strong recom- 1. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by a carbapenem-resis-
mendation, very low-quality evidence). tant pathogen that is sensitive only to polymyxins, we recom-
Remarks: High risk of death in the meta-regression analysis mend intravenous polymyxins (colistin or polymyxin B)
was defined as mortality risk >25%; low risk of death is defined (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), and
as mortality risk <15%. For a patient whose septic shock we suggest adjunctive inhaled colistin (weak recommenda-
resolves when antimicrobial sensitivities are known, continued tion, low-quality evidence).
combination therapy is not recommended. Values and Preferences: These recommendations place a
high value on achieving clinical cure and survival; they
XVIII. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP place a lower value on burden and cost.
Due to Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL)–Producing Gram- Remarks: Inhaled colistin may have potential pharmacoki-
Negative Bacilli? netic advantages compared to inhaled polymyxin B, and
Recommendation
clinical evidence based on controlled studies has also
1. For patients with HAP/VAP due to ESBL-producing gram- shown that inhaled colistin may be associated with improved
negative bacilli, we recommend that the choice of an antibiotic clinical outcomes. The clinical evidence for inhaled poly-
for definitive (not empiric) therapy be based upon the results of myxin B is mostly from anecdotal and uncontrolled studies;
antimicrobial susceptibility testing and patient-specific factors we are therefore not suggesting use of inhaled polymyxin
(strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence). B. Colistin for inhalation should be administered promptly
Remarks: Patient-specific factors that should be considered after being mixed with sterile water. This recommendation
when selecting an antimicrobial agent include allergies and co- was made by the US Food and Drug Administration
morbidities that may confer an increased risk of side effects. (FDA) after a report that a cystic fibrosis patient died after
being treated with a premixed colistin formulation [3]. Intra-
XIX. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP venous polymyxin B may have potential pharmacokinetic
Due to Acinetobacter Species?
advantages compared to intravenous colistin, but clinical
Recommendations
data are lacking in patients with HAP/VAP.
1. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species,
we suggest treatment with either a carbapenem or ampicillin/
LENGTH OF THERAPY
sulbactam if the isolate is susceptible to these agents (weak
recommendation, low-quality evidence). XXI. Should Patients With VAP Receive 7 Days or 8–15 Days of Antibiotic
Therapy?
2. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species
Recommendation
that is sensitive only to polymyxins, we recommend intrave-
nous polymyxin (colistin or polymyxin B) (strong recommenda- 1. For patients with VAP, we recommend a 7-day course of an-
tion, low-quality evidence), and we suggest adjunctive inhaled timicrobial therapy rather than a longer duration (strong rec-
colistin (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). ommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Remarks: There exist situations in which a shorter or longer INTRODUCTION
duration of antibiotics may be indicated, depending upon the
Despite advances in the understanding of contributing causes
rate of improvement of clinical, radiologic, and laboratory
and prevention, HAP and VAP continue to be frequent compli-
parameters.
cations of hospital care. Together, they are among the most
common hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), accounting for
XXII. What Is the Optimal Duration of Antibiotic Therapy for HAP 22% of all HAIs in a multistate point-prevalence survey [4]. Al-
(Non-VAP)? though hospital-reported data from the National Healthcare
Recommendation
Safety Network suggest that VAP rates have been declining [5,
1. For patients with HAP, we recommend a 7-day course of 6], recently published data from a randomly selected national
antimicrobial therapy (strong recommendation, very low- sample demonstrated that approximately 10% of patients who
quality evidence). required mechanical ventilation were diagnosed with VAP and
Remarks: There exist situations in which a shorter or longer that this rate has not declined over the past decade [7].
duration of antibiotics may be indicated, depending upon the These infections negatively impact important patient out-
rate of improvement of clinical, radiologic, and laboratory comes. While all-cause mortality associated with VAP has
parameters. been reported to range from 20% to 50%, the mortality directly
related to VAP is debated; a recent meta-analysis derived from
randomized VAP prevention studies estimated the attributable
XXIII. Should Antibiotic Therapy Be De-escalated or Fixed in Patients
mortality at 13% [8]. There is little controversy, however, re-

With HAP/VAP?
Recommendation garding the tremendous resource use and prolonged hospital
length of stay related to VAP. Two recent studies estimated
1. For patients with HAP/VAP, we suggest that antibiotic ther- that VAP prolongs length of mechanical ventilation by 7.6 to
apy be de-escalated rather than fixed (weak recommendation, 11.5 days and prolongs hospitalization by 11.5 to 13.1 days com-
very low-quality evidence). pared to similar patients without VAP [9, 10]. The excess cost as-
Remarks: De-escalation refers to changing an empiric sociated with VAP was estimated to be approximately $40 000 per
broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen to a narrower anti- patient [10].
biotic regimen by changing the antimicrobial agent or Even in HAP, generally considered to be less severe than
changing from combination therapy to monotherapy. In VAP, serious complications occur in approximately 50% of pa-
contrast, fixed antibiotic therapy refers to maintaining tients [11], including respiratory failure, pleural effusions, septic
a broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen until therapy is shock, renal failure, and empyema. This is particularly seen
completed. among patients who develop HAP in the intensive care unit
(ICU), where the mortality rate approaches that of patients
XXIV. Should Discontinuation of Antibiotic Therapy Be Based Upon PCT with VAP [11, 12].
Levels Plus Clinical Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone in Patients With The last American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseas-
HAP/VAP?
es Society of America (IDSA) HAP/VAP guidelines, published
Recommendation
in 2005 [1], provided evidence-based recommendations for the
1. For patients with HAP/VAP, we suggest using PCT levels prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HCAP, HAP, and VAP.
plus clinical criteria to guide the discontinuation of antibiotic Since 2005, new studies have provided additional insights into
therapy, rather than clinical criteria alone (weak recommen- diagnosis and treatment of these conditions. Furthermore, in
dation, low-quality evidence). the 11 years since the publication of these guidelines, there
Remarks: It is not known if the benefits of using PCT levels have been advances in evidence-based guideline methodology.
to determine whether or not to discontinue antibiotic thera- For these reasons, the ATS and the IDSA have collaborated to
py exist in settings where standard antimicrobial therapy for create updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of
VAP is already 7 days or less. HAP and VAP.
Scope and Purpose

XXV. Should Discontinuation of Antibiotic Therapy Be Based Upon the The purpose of this document is to provide evidence-based
CPIS Plus Clinical Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone in Patients With
guidance on the most effective diagnosis and management of
Suspected HAP/VAP?
nonimmunocompromised patients with HAP/VAP. Patients
Recommendation
with immunosuppression who are at risk for opportunistic pul-
1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we suggest not using monary infection represent a special population that often re-
the CPIS to guide the discontinuation of antibiotic therapy quires an alternative approach to diagnosis and treatment.
(weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). While many of the concepts addressed in these guidelines
might be applicable to immunosuppressed patients, the recom- factors for MDR pathogens, not solely on whether or not the
mendations are not intended for such patients. The target audi- patient had previous contacts with the healthcare system. For
ence for these guidelines includes healthcare professionals who these reasons, the panel unanimously decided that HCAP
care for patients at risk for HAP and VAP, including specialists should not be included in the HAP/VAP guidelines.
in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and sur-
geons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and Definitions
healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with noso- The panel agreed that the definitions of HAP and VAP, as de-
comial pneumonia. This document may also serve as the basis lineated in the 2005 guidelines [1], are clinically useful and
for development and implementation of locally adapted generally accepted; therefore, the panel did not consider
guidelines. amending them. Pneumonia was defined in the 2005 document
To determine the scope of the current guidelines, the panel as the presence of “new lung infiltrate plus clinical evidence
considered whether or not there were new data that could that the infiltrate is of an infectious origin, which include the
lead to a change in recommendations since the last ATS/ new onset of fever, purulent sputum, leukocytosis, and decline
IDSA guidelines were published. We also considered the avail- in oxygenation.” Nonetheless, the panel recognizes that there is
ability of more recent guidelines from other organizations to no gold standard for the diagnosis of HAP or VAP. Further-
avoid needless redundancy. Based on these considerations, the more, in the 2005 document and this update, HAP is defined
panel agreed that the guidelines on the prevention of VAP ini- as a pneumonia not incubating at the time of hospital admis-
tially published by the Society for Healthcare and Epidemiology sion and occurring 48 hours or more after admission. VAP is

of America (SHEA) in 2008 [13], and updated in 2014 [14], defined as a pneumonia occurring >48 hours after endotracheal
made it unnecessary to include prevention recommendations intubation.
in the present guidelines. The panel initially agreed that updated Much of the literature on this subject is complicated by in-
recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of consistent usage of the term HAP, with some using the term
HCAP, HAP, and VAP were needed, given the existence of im- to denote any pneumonia developing in the hospital, and others
portant new evidence since the publication of the prior guide- excluding VAP from the HAP designation. In this document,
lines in 2005. the term “HAP” will denote episodes of pneumonia not associ-
ated with mechanical ventilation. Thus, HAP and VAP patients
Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia
will belong to 2 mutually exclusive groups. In using this de-
The rationale for inclusion of the HCAP designation with the finition, we can avoid the use of the cumbersome term “non-
HAP/VAP guidelines in 2005 was that patients with HCAP ventilator-associated HAP,” with occasional exceptions in the
were thought to be at high risk for MDR organisms by virtue interest of clarity (eg, section headings or key tables).
of their contact with the healthcare system. Therefore, due to We note the new entities of ventilator-associated events (in-
both the patients’ contact with the healthcare system and the cluding ventilator-associated conditions and infection-related
presumed high risk of MDR pathogens, guidelines for these pa- ventilator-associated complications) introduced by the US Cen-
tients were included with guidelines for HAP and VAP, the ters for Disease Control and Prevention as potential metrics to
HAPs. However, in subsequent years, these 2 rationales for in- assess the quality of care provided to ventilated patients [20].
cluding HCAP with the HAP/VAP recommendations have While the measurement of these events may be a useful concept
come into question. There is increasing evidence from a grow- for trending and benchmarking quality, these definitions were
ing number of studies that many patients defined as having designed for the purposes of surveillance and quality improve-
HCAP are not at high risk for MDR pathogens [15–19]. Fur- ment at the population level and not to aid in diagnosis and
thermore, although interaction with the healthcare system is po- treatment decisions at the bedside. The panel therefore did not
tentially a risk for MDR pathogens, underlying patient consider these definitions for the purposes of these guidelines.
characteristics are also important independent determinants
of risk for MDR pathogens [15–17]. Even if HCAP would be METHODOLOGY
considered as a separate clinical entity, it was thought that Guideline Panel Composition
this could be included in the upcoming community-acquired The IDSA and ATS each elected one co-chair to lead the guide-
pneumonia (CAP) guidelines because patients with HCAP, line panel. Dr Andre Kalil was elected to represent the IDSA
like those with CAP, frequently present from the community and Dr Mark Metersky was elected to represent the ATS. A
and are initially cared for in emergency departments. Finally, total of 18 subject-matter experts comprised the full panel,
in light of the more recent data regarding the HCAP population, which included specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary
the panel anticipated that recommendations regarding coverage medicine, critical care medicine, laboratory medicine, microbi-
for MDR pathogens among community-dwelling patients who ology, and pharmacology as well as a guideline methodologist.
develop pneumonia would likely be based on validated risk Two other societies, the Society of Critical Care Medicine

(SCCM) and the SHEA, provided representatives with expertise Searches were limited to studies performed in adults and
in HAP and/or VAP. An expert in guideline methodology, those published in English or containing an English abstract.
Dr Jan Brozek, oversaw all methodological aspects of the guide- No publication year limits were used. The initial literature
lines. Ms Peggy Cruse, MLIS, and Ms Shandra L. Knight, MS, searches were performed in 2012 and 2013, and then updated
worked as the librarians in charge of all issues related to the sys- in July 2014. Studies published up to November 2015 were in-
tematic identification of scientific evidence and literature for cluded if pertinent to these guidelines. To supplement the elec-
all PICO (Patient/Population [P]; Intervention/Indicator[I]; tronic searches, as needed, panelists contacted experts and
Comparator/Control[C]; Outcome[O]) questions. Ms Jennifer hand-searched journals, conference proceedings, reference
J. Padberg, MPH, Ms Judy Corn, and Mr John Harmon were lists, and regulatory agency websites for relevant articles. The ti-
in charge of all administrative and logistic issues related to the tles and abstracts of all identified citations were screened and all
guideline panel. Mr Shane McDermott and Ms Jennifer potentially relevant citations were subjected to a full-text review,
J. Padberg, MPH, were in charge of all conflicts of interest using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
(COI) issues. The results of the literature searches were thoroughly re-
viewed by the panelists followed by selection and evaluation
Disclosure and Management of Potential Conflicts of Interest
of the relevant articles. Once the articles were selected, the pan-
All prospective panelists were required to disclose any actual,
elists in conjunction with the co-chairs and the methodologist
potential, or perceived COI prior to being placed on the
decided if a qualitative and/or a quantitative analysis was appro-
panel. The disclosures were used to categorize the panelists as
priate. Panelists were not required to update their recently per-
cleared for full participation, allowed to participate with recusal

formed meta-analyses with results of the last search unless there
from certain aspects of guideline development, or disqualified
was likelihood that doing so would result in a change to the
from participation. The co-chairs remained free of any financial
strength or direction of a recommendation.
COI during the entire guideline development process. They
Evidence summaries for each question were prepared by the
therefore avoided any relationships with pharmaceutical or de-
panel members using the GRADE approach for rating the con-
vice companies that had products in development or being mar-
fidence in the evidence [2]. The summaries of evidence were dis-
keted for pneumonia. Furthermore, all panelists were precluded
cussed and reviewed by all committee members and edited as
from participating in any marketing-related activities (ie, lec-
appropriate. The values and preferences for a specific outcome
tures or advisory boards directly funded by a pharmaceutical
could have a higher or lower value placed on it for different
or device company with interests related to the subject of
PICO questions; this variation happened because the value
these guidelines) during the entire process. Panelists were re-
was always evaluated in the context of all other outcomes rele-
quired to disclose to the ATS and IDSA and the chairs any
vant to each PICO question. Once the analyses were completed,
new activities that had the potential to be viewed as a COI
the panelists presented their data and findings to the whole
prior to engaging in the activity. Staff and members of the so-
panel for deliberation and drafting of recommendations. Liter-
cieties determined if specific activities were allowed under the
ature search strategies, evidence tables, evidence profiles, and
societies’ COI rules. Assignments of panelists to specific PICO
additional data, including meta-analysis results, can be found
questions were made as to minimize any COI concerns. At the
in the supplementary materials [21].
beginning of each meeting, whether face-to-face or by telecon-
ference, panelists were required to disclose any new potential
Development of Clinical Recommendations
COI or prior relevant COI to the subject matter to be
All recommendations were labeled as either “strong” or “weak”
discussed.
(conditional) according to the GRADE approach. The words
Clinical Questions and Evidence Review “we recommend” indicate strong recommendations and “we
An initial list of relevant clinical questions for these guidelines suggest” indicate weak recommendations. Table 1 provides
was created by the co-chairs and then submitted to the whole the suggested interpretation of strong and weak recommenda-
panel for review and discussion. After the committee prioritized tions for patients, clinicians, and healthcare policy makers. Al-
the proposed topics via an online poll, the final set of clinical though there is arguably ongoing need for research on virtually
questions to be addressed was approved by the whole commit- all of the topics considered in this guideline, “Research Needs”
tee. All outcomes of interest were identified a priori and the were noted for recommendations in which the need was be-
guideline committee explicitly rated their importance for deci- lieved by the panelists to be particularly acute. High-quality ev-
sion making. Each clinical question was assigned to a pair of idence was lacking for many of the recommendations. Strong
panelists. recommendations were sometimes made in the setting of
Two expert health sciences librarians (P. C. and S. L. K.) de- lower-quality evidence when the panelists believed that most in-
signed literature searches to address all of the clinical questions dividuals would desire the recommended course of action, and
(see supplementary materials [21] for full search details). that most well-informed clinicians would agree, despite the low-
quality evidence. All members of the panel participated in the cocci and Haemophilus influenzae, it has been implicated in
preparation of the guideline and approved the final recommen- the rise of MDR VAP due to MRSA, Pseudomonas, and other
dations. Feedback was obtained from external peer reviewers. non-glucose-fermenting organisms late in the course of hospi-
The SCCM and the SHEA reviewed and endorsed the guide- talization [24, 31–33]. This emphasizes the need for judicious
line. The IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee, selection of patients for antibiotic therapy.
the IDSA Board of Directors, and the ATS Board of Directors Other underlying clinical conditions may influence the mi-
reviewed and approved the guideline prior to dissemination. crobiology of VAP. Sepsis may alter the response of cellular el-
ements that comprise the innate immune system [34]. The
RISK FACTORS FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE IN protracted immunosuppressive phase following the hyperin-
VAP AND HAP flammatory response in sepsis diminishes the host ability to
Because issues surrounding antibiotic resistance are fundamen- clear MDR pathogens that are selected following early adminis-
tal to the consideration of many of the clinical questions ad- tration of antibiotics. Studies of patients with ARDS have also
dressed by this guideline, we undertook a series of systematic noted a higher incidence of MRSA and non-glucose-fermenting
reviews and meta-analyses to better understand risk factors gram-negative bacilli [35]. The onset of VAP appears to be de-
for MDR in both VAP and HAP. In these meta-analyses, we layed in ARDS patients, probably because of the near-universal
studied risk factors for MDR in general, in addition to risk fac- use of antibiotics early in the course of ARDS. When VAP does
tors for specific classes of organisms. The findings do not lead to occur, however, the microbial causes appear no different than
any specific recommendations, rather they provided guidance those among patients without ARDS who have required me-

for the panelists for several of the treatment recommendations. chanical ventilation for similar periods of time and who have
If more than one study was available for any risk factor, then experienced similar levels of exposure to antibiotic therapy
random-effects modeling was used for the pooled estimates [36]. In contrast, coma upon ICU admission had a protective
and their confidence intervals (CIs). effective against MDR VAP. This effect is related to the in-
creased propensity of neurotrauma patients to develop VAP
Risk Factors for VAP Caused by Any MDR Organism early in their ICU admission.
Risk factors for MDR VAP have been addressed in several stud- The concept of early- and late-onset pneumonia is based on
ies (Table 2). Overall, 54 studies were identified in the literature data from the late 1980s demonstrating that about 50% of me-
search, and 39 were excluded because of duplicate publication chanically ventilated patients developed VAP within the first 4
(n = 1), lack of a comparator (n = 34), or nonclinical focus days after admission [37]. This concept has been subject to
(n = 4). Fifteen potential risk factors were included in the validation in several subsequent studies. The study by Ewig
meta-analysis. et al comprehensively illustrates the pathogenesis and the ra-
Factors associated with an increased risk of MDR VAP vs tionale behind it [38]. First, it could be demonstrated that
non-MDR VAP were use of intravenous antibiotics in the past upper airway colonization was an independent predictor of
90 days (odds ratio [OR], 12.3; 95% CI, 6.48–23.35) [22–24], ≥5 subsequent tracheobronchial colonization. Second, coloniza-
days of hospitalization prior to the occurrence of VAP [23, 25– tion patterns in the upper and lower airways changed within
29], septic shock at the time of VAP (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.12– the first 3–4 days from a community-like to a typical nosoco-
3.61) [24, 30], acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) be- mial pattern. Third, colonization with community-like pat-
fore VAP (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.88–5.1) [22, 24], and renal replace- terns was associated with early-onset pneumonia, whereas
ment therapy prior to VAP (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.14–5.49) [22]. nosocomial patterns were associated with a risk of late-onset
Coma present at the time of ICU admission was associated with pneumonia. Finally, antimicrobial prophylaxis with 1 or 2
lower risk of MDR VAP (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, .08–.52) [22]. Use of dosages of a cephalosporin decreased the risk of colonization
systemic corticosteroids was associated with an increased risk of with community-like pathogens, and subsequently, early-
MDR VAP in only one study [23], but due to the lack of report- onset VAP was a risk factor for subsequent colonization
ing on specific dose and duration in addition to the lack of rep- with typical nosocomial pathogens and increased the risk of
lication by other studies, corticosteroid use was not accepted by late-onset VAP. Others found that the threshold may also be
the panel as a risk factor for MDR VAP. Potential risk factors extended to 7 days [24].
that were not found to be consistently associated with resistant Several subsequent studies have questioned the relationship
organisms in our analysis are listed in the supplementary between the timing of VAP and the risk of MDR organisms.
materials [21]. No significant differences between pathogen patterns in early
Prior exposure to intravenous antibiotics has been consistent- and late VAP were found [23, 25–29]. These studies, however,
ly identified as a predisposing factor to MDR pathogens in VAP. varied in their definitions of important concepts such as the
While early antimicrobial therapy has been reported to lessen definition of “time zero” and risk factors for MDR. In fact,
the risk of VAP due to antibiotic-susceptible gram-positive the concept of early vs late VAP should be based on hospital

admission as the starting point, rather than intubation, as intu- factor for MRSA pneumonia. There is also some evidence sug-
bation may have taken place after several days of hospitalization, gesting that a positive MRSA screen from nasal or respiratory
thus resulting in a patient already colonized in the upper and samples may increase the risk of MRSA being cultured from re-
lower airways with typically nosocomial pathogens. Moreover, spiratory samples, but not enough evidence to definitively list
the presence of risk factors for MDR should take precedence this as a risk factor for MRSA pneumonia (see section X).
over the distinction between early- and late-onset pneumonia.
Hence, timing of developing VAP should be evaluated in the Risk Factors for HAP/VAP Due to MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa
context of other risk factors and recent antibiotic treatment. Seven variables were evaluated in 2 studies investigating the as-
Nonetheless, the reviewed evidence suggests that overall, pa- sociation between P. aeruginosa and nosocomial pneumonia
tients who develop VAP after >5 days of hospitalization are at (Table 2) [30, 47]. Direct comparison of available studies is dif-
higher risk of infection with MDR organisms than patients ficult owing to the varied definitions used for multidrug resis-
who develop VAP earlier in their hospitalization. tance. When focusing on case–control studies using more
stringent definitions of multidrug resistance (ie, resistance to
Risk Factors for MDR HAP multiple classes of antipseudomonal antimicrobials), prior use
Risk factors for MDR HAP have only rarely been studied of antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, and history of chronic ob-
(Table 2). Fifteen potential risk factors were included in our structive pulmonary disease have been identified as potential
meta-analysis. Only one risk factor was significantly associated risk factors for MDR P. aeruginosa infection. Furthermore, al-
with MDR HAP: prior intravenous antibiotic use (OR, 5.17; though there are limited data in HAP/VAP patients, patients
95% CI, 2.11–12.67) [39, 40]. While other risk factors may be with cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis are more likely than pa-

relevant, evidence is lacking. With regard to the early vs late tients with other pulmonary diseases to be chronically colo-
pneumonia concept, no data are available for HAP. nized with P. aeruginosa and are therefore also likely at
increased risk for MDR P. aeruginosa. When looking specifi-
Risk Factors for HAP/VAP Due to MRSA
A small number of studies have specifically addressed risk fac- cally at antibiotics associated with the isolation of MDR
tors for nosocomial pneumonia due to MRSA (Table 2). Most P. aeruginosa, prior receipt of carbapenems, broad-spectrum
studies analyzed risk factors for MRSA colonization. Overall, 14 cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones have been identified as
variables have resulted in potential predictive factors in 3 stud- independent risk factors. While there are several potential risk
ies [41–43]. factors, the published evidence is scarce and of low quality.
While nosocomial pneumonia due to MRSA may be asso- Based on the limited analysis, the panel agreed that the prior
ciated with several variables reflecting mainly patient charac- use of intravenous antibiotics was the most predictive risk factor
teristics, severity of disease, as well as specific treatments and for MDR Pseudomonas pneumonia.
interventions, the most consistent body of evidence regarding
DETERMINING ETIOLOGY OF HAP AND VAP
risk factors for MRSA was related to the prior use of intrave-
nous antibiotics. Prior antibiotic treatment is a recognized Because of the growing frequency of MDR organisms as a
risk factor for MRSA infection; however, less attention has cause of VAP, as well as the risks of initial ineffective therapy,
been paid to the question of which specific antimicrobial clas- experts believe that cultures of respiratory secretions should be
ses are the most predictive. Furthermore, MRSA pneumonia obtained from virtually all patients with suspected VAP [1].
is more often seen in late-onset pneumonia than in early-onset The panelists were in agreement with this practice. Given
pneumonia [42]. the widespread acceptance of this tenet at the bedside and
Active case finding of colonized patients and implementation the likelihood that few data would be found to address this
of isolation and decolonization strategies may also have a com- question, panel members decided that this issue would not
plementary role in the reduction of MRSA infections. Some be formally addressed in this document. Therefore, the follow-
studies have shown that MRSA colonization is associated with ing sections related to VAP diagnosis presume that cultures of
an increased likelihood of isolation of MRSA from respiratory respiratory secretions would be obtained from all patients with
samples [44], including samples exclusively from patients diag- suspected VAP.
nosed with pneumonia [45], while at least one other study did The panelists recognized that the underlying evidence in
not demonstrate this association [46]. However, to our knowl- support of blood cultures for patients with VAP is limited.
edge, there are no studies that have prospectively evaluated the However, approximately 15% of patients with VAP are bac-
use of MRSA screening to inform empiric treatment choices. teremic [48–50], and in these patients the definitive identifica-
While there are several potential risk factors for MRSA pneu- tion of a pathogen, often MDR, may alter management. Some
monia, the published evidence for most of these is scarce and of studies have found that patients with bacteremic VAP are at
low quality. Based on the limited data, the panel agreed that the higher risk of morbidity and mortality than nonbacteremic pa-
prior use of intravenous antibiotics was the most predictive risk tients [49–51]. It should be recognized that at least 25% of
positive blood cultures in suspected VAP patients are from a non- [56], whereas the other found no difference [55]. Two of the tri-
pulmonary source. Thus, blood cultures results might provide als that compared invasive sampling with quantitative cultures
evidence of a nonpulmonary source of infection and might re- to noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures mea-
veal bacteria that are not effectively treated by empiric VAP sured antibiotic days: one demonstrated more antibiotic-free
therapy, a potentially important finding given the nonprecise days in the invasive sampling group (5.0 days vs 2.2 days;
nature of VAP diagnosis [49, 50]. For these reasons, the panelists P < .001) [54], whereas the other found no difference [53].
have not revised the 2005 ATS/IDSA guidelines recommenda- The trial that found no difference in antibiotic days excluded
tion and remain in favor of blood cultures for all patients with patients who were infected or colonized with Pseudomonas spe-
suspected VAP. Data are even more limited for patients with cies or MRSA. Therefore, they were able to use monotherapy
HAP, in whom sputum samples are less commonly available and there was less opportunity to deescalate antibiotics, poten-
than in patients with VAP. However, bacteremic HAP is not un- tially biasing the results toward no effect [53]. There was no dif-
usual [52]; therefore, blood culture results may provide further ference in the emergence of antibiotic resistance in the only
guidance for both antibiotic treatment and treatment de-escala- study that looked at this outcome [54]; no other information re-
tion for HAP and VAP. garding adverse events was reported in any of the trials.
When the 5 trials were pooled via meta-analysis, sampl-
ing technique did not affect any clinical outcome, including
MICROBIOLOGIC METHODS TO DIAGNOSE VAP AND
HAP
mean duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay,
or mortality [58].

I. Should Patients With Suspected VAP Be Treated Based on the Results Taken together, the evidence suggests that outcomes are sim-
of Invasive Sampling (ie, Bronchoscopy, Blind Bronchial Sampling)
ilar regardless of whether specimens are obtained invasively or
With Quantitative Culture Results, Noninvasive Sampling (ie,
Endotracheal Aspiration) With Quantitative Culture Results, or noninvasively, and whether cultures are performed quantita-
Noninvasive Sampling with Semiquantitative Culture Results? tively or semiquantitatively. The evidence provides low confi-
Recommendation dence in the effects estimated by the trials due to risk of bias
(lack of blinding in some trials, possible selection bias), indirect-
1. We suggest noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cul-
ness (differing protocols), and imprecision (3 of the trials in-
tures to diagnose VAP, rather than invasive sampling with
cluded small numbers of patients) [55–57].
quantitative cultures and rather than noninvasive sampling
We summarized the performance characteristics of several
with quantitative cultures (weak recommendation, low-
sampling techniques—endotracheal aspirates (ETAs), BAL,
quality evidence).
and PSB—for informational purposes only; the performance
Remarks: Invasive respiratory sampling includes broncho-
characteristics were not used to inform our recommendation.
scopic techniques (ie, BAL, PSB) and blind bronchial sam-
The performance characteristics were estimated by pooling
pling (ie, mini-BAL). Noninvasive respiratory sampling
data from studies that used histopathology as the reference stan-
refers to endotracheal aspiration.
dard. Nine such studies were identified [59–67]. None of the
Summary of the Evidence tests had ideal performance characteristics. Generally, semi-
Our systematic review identified 5 relevant randomized trials quantitative ETAs were the most sensitive, but least specific
[53–57]. In 3 of the trials, invasive sampling (bronchoscopy test [59–61, 64]. Quantitative ETAs and quantitative BAL had
or blind bronchial sampling) with quantitative cultures was near-equivalent intermediate-level performance. Sensitivity
compared to noninvasive sampling (endotracheal aspiration) ranged from 48% (95% CI, 38%–57%) for PSB with ≥103
with semiquantitative cultures [53, 54, 57]; in the remaining CFU/mL to 57% (95% CI, 47%–66%) for quantitative BAL to
2 trials, invasive sampling with quantitative cultures was com- 75% (95% CI, 58%–88%) for ETA with any amount of growth.
pared to noninvasive sampling with quantitative cultures [55, 56]. Specificity ranged from 47% (95% CI, 29%–65%) for ETA with
No trials were identified that compared noninvasive sampling any amount of growth to 80% (95% CI, 71%–88%) for quanti-
with quantitative cultures to noninvasive sampling with semi- tative BAL to 83% (95% CI, 70%–92%) for ETA with ≥105 CFU/
quantitative cultures. mL. Positive predictive values ranged from 60% (95% CI, 49%–
The trials did not identify any significant differences in 28- 71%) for PSB with ≥103 CFU/mL and 61% (95% CI, 45%–76%)
day mortality, overall mortality, length of ICU stay, duration for ETAs with any amount of growth to 77% (95% CI, 66%–
of mechanical ventilation, or antibiotic changes [53, 54, 57]. 85%) for BAL with ≥104 CFU/mL and 81% (95% CI, 67%–
The 2 trials that compared invasive sampling with quantitative 91%) for ETAs with ≥105 CFU/mL.
cultures to noninvasive sampling with quantitative cultures
evaluated antibiotic changes; one demonstrated that invasive Rationale for the Recommendation
sampling led to more antibiotic changes than noninvasive sam- There is no evidence that invasive microbiological sampling
pling (42% vs 15%; relative risk [RR], 2.81, 95% CI, 1.01–7.81) with quantitative cultures improves clinical outcomes

compared with noninvasive sampling with either quantitative at the time of culture, degree of clinical suspicion, signs of
or semiquantitative cultures. Noninvasive sampling can be severe sepsis, and evidence of clinical improvement.
done more rapidly than invasive sampling, with fewer com-
plications and resources. Semiquantitative cultures can be Summary of the Evidence
done more rapidly than quantitative cultures, with fewer lab- Although we do not recommend routine performance of in-
oratory resources and less expertise needed. For these rea- vasive quantitative cultures for patients with suspected VAP,
sons, noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures is the panel recognizes that many clinicians feel that they are of
the microbiological sampling technique recommended by the benefit in decreasing inappropriate antibiotic use and will
panel. likely continue performing them, given the low quality of ev-
The guideline panel acknowledged that there is a potential idence on which the recommendation against their perfor-
that invasive sampling with quantitative cultures could lead mance was based. We therefore decided to address the issue
to less antibiotic exposure if growth below defined thresh- of the safety of antibiotic discontinuation when quantitative
olds (eg, 10 3 CFU/mL for PSB, 10 4 CFU/mL for BAL) is cultures are below the diagnostic threshold. We identified 6
used as a trigger to stop antibiotics [68]. This outcome is studies that enrolled patients with VAP, measured the discon-
important due to the risks of acquiring antibiotic resistance, tinuation of antibiotics on the basis of quantitative culture re-
the risk of side effects, and the costs of unnecessary or ex- sults, and used the following thresholds to either diagnose or
cessive antibiotic therapy; however, the estimated effects of exclude VAP: a PSB of <103 CFU/mL, a BAL of <104 CFU/mL,
invasive sampling with quantitative culture on antibiotic ex- and an ETA of <105 CFU/mL [54, 68, 70–73]. We excluded

posure are inconsistent and, therefore, insufficient to guide 20 studies that either did not withhold antibiotics on the
therapy at this time [53–55]. Of note, lower respiratory basis of the culture results or did not measure the utilization
(eg, BAL, mini-BAL, brush, wash, ETA) and sputum of antibiotics once the culture results were known [53, 55–57,
samples should be processed within 2 hours if kept at 74–88].
room temperature and within 24 hours if kept at 4 degrees Only one of the selected studies was a randomized trial [54].
Celsius [69]. The trial randomly assigned patients with possible VAP to ei-
ther bronchoscopic sampling with quantitative cultures or the
Research Needs
use of clinical criteria alone to diagnose VAP. This trial found
The panel agreed that the question of whether or not invasive
that bronchoscopic sampling with quantitative cultures de-
sampling with quantitative cultures reduces antibiotic use, anti-
creased 14-day mortality and antibiotic use. However, it did
biotic resistance, direct costs, and indirect costs should be a pri-
not compare outcomes among those whose antibiotics were
ority area for future research. In addition, the panel agreed that
withheld on the basis of the culture results to those whose an-
such trials should measure adverse outcomes, as most trials to
tibiotics were continued.
date have only evaluated beneficial outcomes.
Because the randomized trial did not answer our question, we
II. If Invasive Quantitative Cultures Are Performed, Should Patients With next evaluated the 5 observational studies [68, 70–73]. Only 2 of
Suspected VAP Whose Culture Results Are Below the Diagnostic the studies compared outcomes among those whose antibiotics
Threshold for VAP (PSB With <103 CFU/mL, BAL With <104 CFU/mL) Have were withheld on the basis of the invasively obtained quantita-
Their Antibiotics Withheld Rather Than Continued? tive culture results to those whose antibiotics were continued
Recommendation
despite the culture results. The first study was a prospective co-
1. Noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures is hort study of 68 patients with suspected VAP, in which the prev-
the preferred methodology to diagnose VAP (see section alence of VAP among those undergoing invasive sampling was
I); however, the panel recognizes that invasive quantitative 51%. Patients whose antibiotics were discontinued on the basis
cultures will occasionally be performed by some clini- of the quantitative cultures had a similar mortality and rate of
cians. For patients with suspected VAP whose invasive new respiratory infection as those whose antibiotics were con-
quantitative culture results are below the diagnostic tinued [71]. The second study was a retrospective cohort study
threshold for VAP, we suggest that antibiotics be withheld of 89 patients with suspected VAP whose invasively obtained
rather than continued (weak recommendation, very low- quantitative cultures were below the diagnostic threshold for
quality evidence). VAP [68]. Similar to the other observational study, patients
Values and Preferences: This recommendation places a whose antibiotics were discontinued did not have a higher mor-
high value on avoiding unnecessary harm and cost. tality or rate of new respiratory infection compared to patients
Remarks: Clinical factors should also be considered be- whose antibiotics were continued. However, those whose anti-
cause they may alter the decision of whether to withhold biotics were withheld received a shorter duration of antibiotics,
or continue antibiotics. These include the likelihood of an had a lower rate of total superinfection, and a lower rate of MDR
alternative source of infection, prior antimicrobial therapy superinfection.
Taken together, the evidence indicates that patients whose patients with HAP were randomly assigned to undergo bron-
antibiotics are withheld on the basis of an invasive quantitative choscopy with protected specimen brushing vs noninvasive
culture below the diagnostic threshold for VAP have similar management. In the latter group, expectorated sputum samples
clinical outcomes, less antibiotic use, and better microbiologic were not obtained, so noninvasive management resulted in em-
outcomes compared to patients whose antibiotics are contin- piric therapy, which was supposed to adhere to the recommen-
ued. The panel’s confidence in these estimated effects (ie, the dations from the 2005 ATS/IDSA guidelines [1]. There was no
quality of evidence) was very low because they were derived difference among the 2 groups in either clinical cure at 28 days
from observational studies with imprecision (ie, small studies or hospital length of stay. There was lower 28-day mortality in
with few events) and high risk of bias (clinicians may have the empirically treated group than the invasive group, but this
been more likely to stop antibiotics early in less sick patients). was not statistically significant (10% vs 21.9%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI,
.13–1.61). This evidence provided very low confidence in the es-
Rationale for the Recommendation timated effects of microbiologic studies because there was very
Antibiotic discontinuation in patients with suspected VAP serious risk of bias (fewer patients in the invasive group received
whose invasive quantitative culture results are below the diag- antibiotics than in the noninvasive group [76% vs 100%], lack of
nostic threshold for VAP may be beneficial. It decreases unnec- blinding, lack of concealment) and imprecision.
essary antibiotic use, which should reduce antibiotic-related
adverse events (eg, Clostridium difficile colitis and promotion Rationale for the Recommendation
of antibiotic resistance) and costs. Moreover, it improves micro- Despite a lack of evidence showing that respiratory cultures in

biological outcomes (ie, fewer superinfections). While there is patients with suspected HAP improve clinical outcomes, the
no evidence that this approach worsens clinical outcomes, in panel agreed that an attempt should be made to obtain respira-
theory it could result in antibiotics being withdrawn from tory samples for culture. The rationale for this suggestion is that
some patients who would benefit from antibiotic therapy be- resistant pathogens lead to a significant risk of inadequate initial
cause the quantitative culture results were misleadingly low empiric antibiotic therapy [90, 91], which is associated with an
due to sampling error or prior exposure to antibiotics. increased risk of mortality in patients with HAP [92]. Having
culture results means that the antibiotic regimen can be adjust-
III. In Patients With Suspected HAP (Non-VAP), Should Treatment Be
Guided by the Results of Microbiologic Studies Performed on ed on the basis of those results if the patient does not respond to
Respiratory Samples, or Should Treatment Be Empiric? initial therapy. Furthermore, performing cultures of respiratory
Recommendation samples provides the opportunity to de-escalate antibiotic cov-
erage based on the results, minimizing unnecessary antibiotic
1. We suggest that patients with suspected HAP (non-VAP) be
exposure. The panel acknowledges the potential for false-
treated according to the results of microbiologic studies per-
positive results related to oral contamination when noninvasive
formed on respiratory samples obtained noninvasively, rath-
samples are obtained, but judged that the risks of inadequate
er than being treated empirically (weak recommendation,
initial coverage and the potential benefit of allowing de-
escalation outweigh the negative impact of false-positive culture
Values and Preferences: The suggestion places a high value
results.
on the potential to accurately target antibiotic therapy and
The panel further agreed that the respiratory specimens
then deescalate antibiotic therapy based upon respiratory
should be obtained noninvasively rather than invasively. The
and blood culture results. Minimizing resource use by not
panel considered potential advantages of invasive sampling,
obtaining respiratory cultures is given a lower value.
which might include less risk of inadequate initial antibiotic
Remarks: Noninvasive methods to obtain respiratory sam-
coverage [90–92] and facilitation of antibiotic de-escalation.
ples include the following: spontaneous expectoration, spu-
However, there is no evidence in patients with HAP that either
tum induction, nasotracheal suctioning in a patient who is
of these goals would be frequently realized with regular use of
unable to cooperate to produce a sputum sample, and endo-
invasive sampling. Furthermore, routine use of invasive sam-
tracheal aspiration in a patient with HAP who subsequently
pling via bronchoscopy would be associated with increased
requires mechanical ventilation. The panel recognizes that
cost and increased risks to the patient. Although generally
for some patients in whom a respiratory sample cannot be
safe, bronchoscopy may rarely cause life-threatening complica-
obtained noninvasively, there may be factors which could
tions [93] and BAL results in temporary worsening of gas ex-
prompt consideration of obtaining samples invasively.
change both due to sedating medications and the lavage itself
Summary of the Evidence [94], and this could result in the need for respiratory support.
We found only one randomized trial that compared empiric an- The potential advantages of obtaining invasive cultures (less
tibiotic therapy with therapy based on the results of microbio- risk of inadequate initial coverage, de-escalation of antibiotic
logic studies in patients with suspected HAP [89]. Sixty-eight therapy) may not outweigh the disadvantages (negative impact

of false-positive culture) of noninvasive techniques once the (95% CI, 53%–79%), 83% (95% CI, 43%–97%), 3.9 (95% CI,
costs and risks of the invasive procedure are added as potential .9–17.5), 0.4 (95% CI, .25–.62), and 10 (95% CI, 2–59), respec-
disadvantages. tively. The optimal PCT diagnostic thresholds differed accord-
ing to the severity of presentation, clinical setting, and type of
THE USE OF BIOMARKERS AND THE CLINICAL assay used. The summary receiver operating characteristic
PULMONARY INFECTION SCORE TO DIAGNOSE VAP (SROC) curve resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of
AND HAP 0.76 (95% CI, .72–.79), which indicates moderate overall test
accuracy.
IV. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should PCT Plus Clinical
Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone Be Used to Decide Whether or Not to The panel’s confidence in the accuracy of these pooled per-
Initiate Antibiotic Therapy? formance characteristics (ie, the quality of evidence) was mod-
Recommendation erate because they were derived from accuracy studies with a
serious risk of bias. The risk of bias was multifactorial. Many
1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we recommend using
studies did not report enrolling consecutive patients, did not
clinical criteria alone, rather than using serum PCT plus
report enrolling patients with a legitimate diagnostic uncer-
clinical criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic
tainty (some studies required prior microbiological confirma-
therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
tion of HAP/VAP), did not explain the reasons for
Summary of the Evidence withdrawals, did not report blinding the outcome assessor,
PCT is a precursor of calcitonin that is constitutively secreted and may have chosen diagnostic thresholds that gave more fa-

by C cells of the thyroid gland and K cells of the lung [95]. In vorable results.
healthy individuals, PCT is normally undetectable (<0.01 ng/ The meta-analysis revealed inconsistency of the evidence
mL). When stimulated by endotoxin, PCT is rapidly produced (heterogeneity analysis I 2 = 87.9; P < .001). However, the panel
by parenchymal tissue throughout the body [96]; this PCT pro- did not downgrade the quality of evidence due to the inconsis-
duction has also been observed in diverse types of bacterial in- tency because the performance characteristics were similar even
fections [97, 98]. PCT may increase in response to sterile after the heterogeneity was reduced by excluding certain studies.
inflammation or viral infection, but it is less common [99]. Causes of the heterogeneity included the methodological qual-
This characteristic makes PCT a potentially valuable diagnostic ity of the studies, the clinical setting (ie, whether the study was
test for the diagnosis of HAP/VAP. conducted in a surgical or medical unit), and the type of PCT
We sought studies that enrolled patients with suspected assay. There was no evidence of potential publication bias ac-
HAP/VAP and then compared outcomes among patients for cording to Egger test for funnel plot asymmetry.
whom the initiation of antibiotic therapy was based upon
serum PCT levels plus clinical criteria with outcomes among Rationale for the Recommendation
patients for whom therapy was based upon clinical criteria The systematic review identified no studies that enrolled pa-
alone. We found no such studies; therefore, we selected 6 studies tients with suspected HAP/VAP and then compared outcomes
that reported the performance characteristics for serum PCT for among patients for whom the initiation of antibiotic therapy
the diagnosis of HAP/VAP, generally diagnosed according to was based upon serum PCT levels plus clinical criteria vs out-
the 2005 guideline definitions [1, 100–105]. Our underlying as- comes among patients for whom therapy was based upon clin-
sumption was that serum PCT results indicative of HAP/VAP ical criteria alone. Therefore, the guideline development panel
will prompt antibiotic therapy, which will improve clinical out- used accuracy studies to inform its recommendations.
comes. The immunoluminometric method was used to measure The panel decided a priori that it would recommend that an-
serum PCT in 2 studies, and the Kryptor test using time- tibiotics be initiated or withheld on the basis of serum PCT test-
resolved amplified cryptate emission technology was used to ing plus clinical criteria, rather than clinical criteria alone, if
measure serum PCT in 4 studies. The cutoffs used to distinguish HAP/VAP can be confirmed or excluded by serum PCT with
patients who had HAP/VAP from those who did not varied a sensitivity and specificity of >90%. These thresholds were
among studies, ranging from 0.5 to 3.9 ng/mL. Some studies re- set because, assuming a prevalence of HAP/VAP of 50%
ported results for varying thresholds. None of the cutoffs used among those who undergo testing, then for every 1000 patients
in the studies were subsequently validated. tested, only 50 patients (5%) would be incorrectly categorized as
We pooled the performance characteristics of serum PCT having or not having HAP/VAP.
for the diagnosis of HAP/VAP via a meta-analysis using a bi- The evidence indicates that serum PCT plus clinical criteria
variate regression approach. The 6 studies included 665 partic- can diagnose HAP/VAP with a sensitivity and specificity of 67%
ipants, among whom 335 (50.4%) were ultimately diagnosed and 83%, respectively. These findings failed to meet the panel’s
with HAP/VAP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood prespecified thresholds for recommending that serum PCT plus
ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic OR were 67% clinical criteria be used to decide whether or not to initiate
antibiotics. The false-negative and false-positive rates of serum underlying assumption was that sTREM-1 results indicative of
PCT testing plus clinical criteria are 33% and 17%, respectively. HAP/VAP would prompt antibiotic therapy, which would im-
Thus, assuming a prevalence of HAP/VAP of 50%, then for prove clinical outcomes. The measurement of sTREM-1 was per-
every 1000 patients with suspected HAP/VAP who are evaluat- formed on BALF by immunoblot in one study [115], on BALF
ed with serum PCT plus clinical criteria, 165 patients (16.5%) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in 4 studies
would be incorrectly diagnosed as not having HAP/VAP and [110–114], and on mini-BALF by ELISA in one study [114].
85 patients (8.5%) will be incorrectly diagnosed as having The cutoff values used to distinguish patients who had HAP/VAP
HAP/VAP. from those who did not varied widely among studies, ranging
A recent trial that randomized ICU patients to a PCT-guided from 5 to 900 pg/mL.
antibiotic escalation protocol vs standard of care, aiming to im- We pooled the performance characteristics of sTREM-1 for
prove survival by increasing early appropriate antibiotic thera- the diagnosis of HAP/VAP via a meta-analysis using a bivariate
py, showed that the PCT-guided protocol did not result in regression approach. Our meta-analysis included 208 patients
survival improvement, but resulted in a higher number of ven- with clinically suspected pneumonia, of whom 108 (52%)
tilator-days and prolonged ICU stay [106]. were ultimately diagnosed with pneumonia. The sensitivity,
In the view of the guideline panelists, patients who are incor- specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio,
rectly diagnosed with HAP/VAP are likely to receive antibiotics and diagnostic OR were 84% (95% CI, 63%–94%), 49% (95%
and, therefore, are at unnecessary risk for side effects and incur CI, 18%–81%), 1.6 (95% CI, .8%–3.3), 0.33 (95% CI, .12–
unnecessary costs. Perhaps more important, efforts to find the 0.93), and 5 (95% CI, 1–24), respectively. The sensitivity and

correct diagnosis may cease, increasing the time until correct di- specificity of sTREM-1 were lower in studies that used ELISA
agnosis and therapy. Conversely, incorrectly excluding HAP/ [110–114] than in studies that used an immunoblot technique
VAP delays the initiation of antibiotic therapy, which may [115]. The optimal sTREM-1 diagnostic thresholds differed ac-
lead to poorer clinical outcomes. The panel agreed that the fre- cording to the severity of presentation, clinical setting, and type
quency of such undesirable consequences due to misleading of assay used. The SROC curve resulted in an AUC of 0.78 (95%
PCT results was unacceptable and, therefore, recommended CI, .75–.82), which indicates moderate overall test accuracy.
not using PCT to guide antibiotic initiation. The panel’s confidence in the accuracy of these pooled per-
formance characteristics (ie, the quality of evidence) was mod-
erate because they are derived from accuracy studies with
V. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should sTREM-1 Plus Clinical
Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone Be Used to Decide Whether or Not to serious risk of bias. The risk of bias is due to the studies not en-
Initiate Antibiotic Therapy? rolling consecutive patients with legitimate diagnostic uncer-
Recommendation tainty (one study used clinical plus microbiological results as
inclusion criteria [115], whereas 5 studies used clinical, radio-
1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we recommend using
logical, and microbiological findings as inclusion criteria
clinical criteria alone, rather than using BALF sTREM-1 plus
[110–114]). Moreover, because the studies in the meta-analysis
clinical criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic
used BALF quantitative culture as the reference standard, the
therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
prior use of antibiotics may have resulted in more negative
Summary of the Evidence cases and participants with anaerobic infections may have
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells (TREM-1) has been misclassified, which could have altered the performance
been studied as a biological marker of microbial infection. characteristics of sTREM-1.
TREM-1 is a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily
that has been shown to be strongly expressed on the neutrophils Rationale for the Recommendation
and monocytes infiltrating tissues invaded by bacteria or fungi Our systematic review identified no studies that enrolled pa-
[107]. However, its use in diagnosing infections is uncertain be- tients with suspected HAP/VAP and then compared outcomes
cause several recent studies suggest sTREM-1 may also be ele- among patients for whom the initiation of antibiotic therapy
vated in noninfectious causes of inflammation [108, 109]. was based upon soluble sTREM-1 levels plus clinical criteria
We sought studies that enrolled patients with suspected vs outcomes among patients for whom therapy was based
HAP/VAP and then compared outcomes among patients for upon clinical criteria alone. Therefore, the guideline
whom the initiation of antibiotic therapy was based upon solu- development panel used accuracy studies to inform its
ble TREM-1 (sTREM-1) levels plus clinical criteria with out- recommendations.
comes among patients for whom therapy was based upon The panel decided a priori that it would recommend that an-
clinical criteria alone. We found no such studies; therefore, we tibiotics be initiated or withheld on the basis of BALF sTREM-1
selected 6 studies that reported the performance characteristics testing plus clinical criteria, rather than clinical criteria alone, if
for sTREM-1 for the diagnosis of HAP/VAP [110–115]. Our HAP/VAP could be confirmed or excluded by BALF sTREM-1

with a sensitivity and specificity of >90%. These thresholds were same among patients with and without VAP [116]. Taken togeth-
set because, assuming a prevalence of HAP/VAP of 50% among er, these studies suggest that CRP cannot reliably distinguish pa-
those who undergo testing, then for every 1000 patients tested, tients with VAP from patients without VAP.
only 50 patients (5%) will be incorrectly categorized as having The panel’s confidence in the findings that CRP levels are
or not having HAP/VAP. similar among patients with and without VAP was low because
The evidence indicates that BALF sTREM-1 can diagnose the findings are from observational studies with serious impre-
HAP/VAP with a sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 49%, re- cision (ie, few patients and events).
spectively. These findings failed to meet the panel’s prespecified
thresholds for recommending that BALF sTREM-1 plus clinical Rationale for the Recommendation
criteria be used to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotics. For a diagnostic test to be helpful in deciding whether or not to
The false-negative and false-positive rates of BALF sTREM-1 initiate or withhold antibiotics for VAP, it must be capable of
are 16% and 51%, respectively. Thus, again assuming a preva- distinguishing patients with VAP from patients without VAP.
lence of HAP/VAP of 50%, then for every 1000 patients tested, All 3 studies suggest that CRP levels do not make this distinc-
80 patients (8%) will be incorrectly diagnosed as not having tion. Therefore, the panel judged that CRP testing was just as
HAP/VAP and 255 patients (25.5%) will be incorrectly diag- likely to lead clinicians astray as it is to help clinicians and,
nosed as having HAP/VAP. therefore, the benefits of using CRP levels to inform decision
Patients who are incorrectly diagnosed with HAP/VAP are making in patients with possible VAP does not outweigh the
likely to receive antibiotics and, therefore, are at unnecessary costs and burdens of testing.

risk for side effects and incur unnecessary costs. Perhaps
VII. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should the Modified CPIS Plus
more important, efforts to find the correct diagnosis may Clinical Criteria, or Clinical Criteria Alone, Be Used to Decide Whether or
cease, increasing the duration until correct diagnosis and ther- Not to Initiate Antibiotic Therapy?
apy. Conversely, incorrectly excluding HAP/VAP delays the ini- Recommendation
tiation of antibiotic therapy, which may lead to poorer clinical
1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we suggest using
outcomes. The panel agreed that the frequency of such undesir-
clinical criteria alone, rather than using CPIS plus clinical
able consequences due to misleading BALF sTREM-1 results
criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic therapy
was unacceptable and, therefore, recommended not using
(weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).
BALF sTREM-1 to guide antibiotic therapy.
Summary of the Evidence
VI. In Patients With Suspected HAP/VAP, Should CRP Plus Clinical
Criteria, or Clinical Criteria Alone, Be Used to Decide Whether or Not to Clinical criteria have historically informed the need to start an-
Initiate Antibiotic Therapy? tibiotics in patients with suspected HAP/VAP. However, semi-
Recommendation objective measures such as the CPIS have emerged as a potential
tool to assist clinicians in deciding whether or not to initiate an-
1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we recommend
timicrobial therapy for patients with suspected VAP. The CPIS
using clinical criteria alone rather than using CRP plus clin-
is a semiobjective assessment of several clinical factors predic-
ical criteria, to decide whether or not to initiate antibiotic
tive of pneumonia; temperature, white blood cell count, pres-
therapy (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).
ence and character of respiratory secretions, PaO2/FiO 2
Summary of the Evidence (arterial oxygen partial pressure/inspired oxygen fraction)
We sought studies that enrolled patients with suspected HAP/ ratio, and chest radiograph findings.
VAP and then compared outcomes among patients for whom We sought studies that enrolled patients with suspected
the initiation of antibiotic therapy was based upon CRP levels HAP/VAP and then compared outcomes among patients for
plus clinical criteria with outcomes among patients for whom whom the initiation of antibiotic therapy was based upon the
therapy was based upon clinical criteria alone. We found no CPIS plus clinical criteria with outcomes among patients for
such studies; therefore, we selected 3 studies that evaluated whom therapy was based upon clinical criteria alone. We
the ability of CRP to identify patients with VAP [102, 115, 116]. found no such studies; however, we found a published system-
One observational study enrolled 148 patients receiving me- atic review with meta-analysis of 13 accuracy studies that re-
chanical ventilation and then found that the CRP levels in pa- ported the performance characteristics of the CPIS for the
tients who had pneumonia were the same as in those who did diagnosis of VAP [117–121]. The pooled prevalence of VAP
not [115]. A similar study that enrolled 44 patients receiving me- in the studies was 48%. The meta-analysis found that the
chanical ventilation found no differences in the CRP levels of pa- CPIS can confirm or exclude VAP with a sensitivity, specificity,
tients who had VAP compared with those who did not [102]. and diagnostic OR of 65% (95% CI, 61%–69%), 64% (95% CI,
Finally, in a study of 28 patients who had a return of spontaneous 60%–67%), and 4.84 (95% CI, 2.42–9.71), respectively. The
circulation after an out-of-hospital arrest, the CRP levels were the SROC curve resulted in an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI, .65–.85).
The panel’s confidence in the accuracy of these pooled perfor- Summary of the Evidence
mance characteristics (ie, the quality of evidence) was low because To determine whether or not treatment for VAT is warranted,
they are derived from accuracy studies with serious risk of bias (ie, we sought evidence that the treatment of VAT improves clinical
many studies did not enroll consecutive patients with true diag- outcomes. VAT has been defined as fever with no other recog-
nostic uncertainty, withdrawals were not explained) and inconsis- nizable cause, with new or increased sputum production, posi-
tency (heterogeneity analysis I 2 > 87% for all pooled analyses). tive ETA culture (>106 CFU/mL) yielding a new bacteria, and
no radiographic evidence of nosocomial pneumonia [122].
Rationale for the Recommendation Our systematic review identified 3 randomized trials that
Our systematic review identified no studies that enrolled pa- compared the effects of antibiotics to either placebo or no anti-
tients with suspected VAP and then compared outcomes biotics in patients with VAT [123–125]. However, the panel de-
among patients for whom the initiation of antibiotic therapy cided to exclude 2 of the trials because they were too indirectly
was based upon the CPIS plus clinical criteria vs outcomes related to the clinical question, as they defined VAT differently
among patients for whom therapy was based upon clinical cri- than all other studies and evaluated aerosolized antibiotics rath-
teria alone. Therefore, the guideline development panel used a er than intravenous antibiotics [124, 125]. The remaining ran-
published systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy stud- domized trial randomly assigned 58 patients to receive either
ies to inform its recommendations. intravenous antibiotics or no antibiotics for 8 days [123]. The
The panel decided a priori that it would recommend that an- group that received antibiotic therapy had lower ICU mortality
tibiotics be initiated or withheld on the basis of the CPIS plus (18% vs 47%; OR, 0.24, 95% CI, .07–.88), less subsequent VAP

clinical criteria, rather than clinical criteria alone, if VAP can be (13% vs 47%; OR, 0.17, 95% CI, .04–.70), and more mechanical
confirmed or excluded by the CPIS with a sensitivity and spe- ventilation–free days (median 12 vs 2 days; P < .001), but no dif-
cificity of >90%. These thresholds were set because, assuming a ference in the duration of mechanical ventilation or length of
prevalence of VAP of 48% among those who undergo testing, ICU stay [123].
then for every 1000 patients tested, only 48 patients (4.8%) The panel was concerned about the randomized trial’s risk of
will be incorrectly categorized as having or not having VAP. bias because it was unblinded and stopped early due to benefit.
The evidence indicates that the CPIS can diagnose VAP with Therefore, the panel also evaluated 4 observational studies [122,
a sensitivity and specificity of only 65% and 64%, respectively. 126–128]. When the observational studies were combined with
These findings failed to meet the panel’s prespecified thresholds the randomized trial, P. aeruginosa comprised 34% of the iso-
for recommending that the CPIS plus clinical criteria be used to lates; other common organisms included Acinetobacter (27%),
decide whether or not to initiate antibiotics. The false-negative Klebsiella (5%), and MRSA (32%). MDR organisms comprised
and false-positive rates of the CPIS are 35% and 36%, respec- 61% of all isolates, and polymicrobial infections comprised 31%
tively. Thus, again assuming a prevalence of VAP of 48%, of the episodes of VAT [122, 126–128].
then for every 1000 patients tested, 168 patients (16.8%) will The observational studies compared adult mechanically ven-
be incorrectly diagnosed as not having HAP/VAP and 187 pa- tilated patients with VAT who received intravenous antibiotics
tients (18.7%) will be incorrectly diagnosed as having VAP. to patients who did not receive antibiotics. Antibiotic therapy
Patients who are incorrectly diagnosed with HAP/VAP are like- was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation
ly to receive antibiotics and, therefore, are at unnecessary risk for (–3.5 days; 95% CI −6.88 to −.019 days); however, no signifi-
side effects and incur unnecessary costs. Perhaps more important, cant differences were found for mortality or the duration of
efforts to find the correct diagnosis may cease, increasing the du- ICU stay [122, 126–128].
ration until correct diagnosis and therapy. Conversely, incorrectly Taken together, the evidence suggests that antibiotic therapy
excluding HAP/VAP delays the initiation of antibiotic therapy, for VAT may shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation;
which may lead to poorer clinical outcomes. The panel agreed however, it is uncertain whether it improves other clinical out-
that the frequency of such undesirable consequences due to mis- comes due to inconsistent findings. The panel’s confidence in
leading CPIS results was unacceptable and, therefore, recom- the estimated effects of antibiotic therapy in VAT (ie, the quality
mended not using CPIS to guide antibiotic therapy. of evidence) was low because it consisted of a randomized trial
limited by very serious risk of bias as described above, observa-
TREATMENT OF VENTILATOR-ASSOCIATED
tional studies, and inconsistent findings. Two other observa-
TRACHEOBRONCHITIS
tional studies on VAT were published more recently, but their
VIII. Should Patients With Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis results did not change the panel’s recommendations [129, 130].
(VAT) Receive Antibiotic Therapy?
Recommendation
Rationale for the Recommendation
1. In patients with VAT, we suggest not providing antibiotic The potential desirable consequence of antibiotic therapy is a
therapy (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). decreased duration of mechanical ventilation; in contrast, the

potential undesirable consequences of antibiotic therapy in- Values and preferences: These recommendations place a
clude side effects such as rash, C. difficile colitis, antibiotic resis- high value on targeting the specific pathogens associated
tance, and cost. The panel recognizes the potential desirable and with VAP as narrowly as possible in order adequate treat-
undesirable consequences, but judged that the latter outweigh ment while minimizing overtreatment and its undesirable
the former, given the uncertainty regarding the benefits. Fur- consequences.
thermore, the panel recognizes that in some patients, VAT Remarks: The frequency with which the distribution of path-
may occasionally result in mucus plugging, and resultant wean- ogens and their antimicrobial susceptibilities are updated
ing difficulty. In such patients, antibiotic treatment might be should be determined by the institution. Considerations
considered, but no evidence for or against is available for this should include their rate of change, resources, and the
situation. Last, the panel also recognizes that the diagnosis of amount of data available for analysis.
pneumonia is imperfect. The sensitivity and specificity of por-
table chest radiographs for pneumonia are lower than those of
Antimicrobial flora and resistance patterns can vary consider-
computed tomography and autopsy. Thus, in the presence of
ably between and within countries, regions, hospitals, ICUs in
new respiratory signs of infection, such as an increased amount
a hospital, and specimen sources (ie, pulmonary vs other spec-
of purulent sputum and a high-quality sample with positive
imens) [32, 74, 131, 132]. This was illustrated by an observation-
Gram stain, in conjunction with new systemic signs of infection
al study that compared quantitative culture results obtained by
plus worsening oxygenation and/or increasing ventilator set-
bronchoscopy from 229 patients with VAP at 4 different insti-
tings, antibiotic treatment may be considered even in the ab-
tutions; there was wide variation in both the frequency of path-

sence of new or progressive persistent infiltrates on portable
ogens and patterns of antibiotic resistance among the
chest radiographs; the rationale for that is because of the high
institutions [32]. Similarly, another observational study of pa-
likelihood of a new VAP.
tients with VAP found wide variation in both the frequency
Research Needs of pathogens and patterns of antibiotic resistance in different
Randomized trials are needed to examine the effects of treating ICUs within a single institution [132]. However, another
VAT on clinical outcomes, since the existing randomized trials study found that resistance rates measured in overall hospital
have serious limitations. Such trials should use a concise defini- antibiograms are reflected in the resistance rates found in
tion that precludes overlap with VAP or, alternatively, combines ICU-acquired infections, although the frequency of MRSA
the diagnosis of VAT and VAP and adjusts for severity of respi- might be underestimated [133].
ratory illness. Studies assessing the effect of inhaled and intra-
venous antibiotics on clinical outcomes are needed. In addition,
Rationale for the Recommendations
such trials should measure days of systemic antibiotics and
The panel recommends basing regimens for the empiric
posttreatment antimicrobial resistance from both respiratory
treatment of suspected VAP on the local prevalence of path-
and nonrespiratory sites, as the high frequency of MDR patho-
ogens and antimicrobial susceptibilities associated with VAP.
gens in the existing studies suggests that antimicrobial resistance
Because antimicrobial flora and resistance patterns can vary
is increasing in the ICU.
considerably between ICUs, hospitals, regions, and countries,
INITIAL TREATMENT OF VAP AND HAP the only way to know the local prevalence and resistance pat-
terns of pathogens associated with VAP is to develop a local
Selecting an empiric antibiotic regimen for clinically suspected
antibiogram. Ideally, the antibiogram should be specific for
VAP is difficult because clinicians must balance the potential
VAP patients, or failing that, specific for ICU patients, since
benefits of starting adequate antibiotics early (eg, decreased
there is wide variability between different settings and speci-
mortality) with the harms of superfluous coverage (eg, adverse
men sources. Nonetheless, the panel did recognize that devel-
drug effects, C. difficile infection, and increased antimicrobial
oping a local antibiogram, especially one tailored to patients
resistance).
with VAP, will not be feasible in many settings. This is par-
IX. Should Selection of an Empiric Antibiotic Regimen for VAP Be ticularly the case for hospitals that do not routinely conduct
Guided by Local Antibiotic-Resistance data?
surveillance for VAP, hospitals that have very few cases of
Recommendations
VAP, and/or hospitals with relatively few positive ICU cul-
1. We recommend that all hospitals regularly generate and dis- tures regardless of specimen source. In the absence of local
seminate a local antibiogram, ideally one that is specific to microbial epidemiology, clinicians can refer to large national
their intensive care population(s) if possible. and international surveys of organisms and resistance pat-
2. We recommend that empiric treatment regimens be in- terns. The survey closest to the local level should be utilized.
formed by the local distribution of pathogens associated An approved guideline for susceptibility testing is available
with VAP and their antimicrobial susceptibilities. [134].
X. What Antibiotics Are Recommended for Empiric Treatment of 7. In patients with suspected VAP, we suggest avoiding
Clinically Suspected VAP? colistin if alternative agents with adequate gram-negative ac-
Recommendations (See Table 3 for specific antibiotic tivity are available (weak recommendation, very low-quality
recommendations)
evidence).
1. In patients with suspected VAP, we recommend including Values and Preferences: These recommendations are
coverage for S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and other gram- a compromise between the competing goals of
negative bacilli in all empiric regimens (strong recommenda- providing early appropriate antibiotic coverage and avoid-
tion, low-quality evidence). ing superfluous treatment that may lead to adverse drug
i. We suggest including an agent active against MRSA for the effects, C. difficile infections, antibiotic resistance, and in-
empiric treatment of suspected VAP only in patients with creased cost.
any of the following: a risk factor for antimicrobial resis- Remarks: Risk factors for antimicrobial resistance are
tance (Table 2), patients being treated in units where provided in Table 2. The 10%–20% threshold for deciding
>10%–20% of S. aureus isolates are methicillin resistant, whether or not to target MRSA and the 10% threshold for
and patients in units where the prevalence of MRSA deciding whether or not to prescribe one antipseudomo-
is not known (weak recommendation, very low-quality nal agent or 2 were chosen by the panel with a goal of try-
evidence). ing to assure that ≥95% of patient receive empiric therapy
ii. We suggest including an agent active against MSSA (and active against their likely pathogens; when implementing
not MRSA) for the empiric treatment of suspected VAP in these recommendations, individual ICUs may elect to

patients without risk factors for antimicrobial resistance, modify these thresholds. If patient has structural lung dis-
who are being treated in ICUs where <10%–20% of S. au- ease increasing the risk of gram-negative infection (ie,
reus isolates are methicillin resistant (weak recommenda- bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis), 2 antipseudomonal
tion, very low-quality evidence). agents are recommended.
2. If empiric coverage for MRSA is indicated, we recommend
either vancomycin or linezolid (strong recommendation, Summary of the Evidence
moderate-quality evidence). Surveillance studies suggest that the organisms most com-
3. When empiric coverage for MSSA (and not MRSA) is indica- monly associated with VAP in the United States are S. aureus
ted, we suggest a regimen including piperacillin-tazobactam, (approximately 20%–30% of isolates), P. aeruginosa (approx-
cefepime, levofloxacin, imipenem, or meropenem (weak rec- imately 10%–20% of isolates), enteric gram-negative bacilli
ommendation, very low-quality evidence). Oxacillin, nafcillin, (approximately 20%–40% of isolates), and Acinetobacter
or cefazolin are preferred agents for treatment of proven baumannii (approximately 5%–10% of isolates) [138].
MSSA, but are not necessary for the empiric treatment of These organisms are also the most frequent isolates identified
VAP if one of the above agents is used. in international surveillance programs, albeit with a higher
4. We suggest prescribing 2 antipseudomonal antibiotics fraction of cases attributable to P. aeruginosa and A. bauman-
from different classes for the empiric treatment of suspect- nii [139].
ed VAP only in patients with any of the following: a risk Many of these organisms, both in the United States
factor for antimicrobial resistance (Table 2), patients in and abroad, are resistant to common antibiotics. These same
units where >10% of gram-negative isolates are resistant surveillance studies reported that almost 50% of S. aureus
to an agent being considered for monotherapy, and pa- isolates were resistant to methicillin (MRSA), 28%–35% of
tients in an ICU where local antimicrobial susceptibility P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to cefepime, 19%–29% of
rates are not available (weak recommendation, low-quality P. aeruginosa were resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam, and
evidence). 56%–61% of A. baumannii isolates were resistant to carbape-
5. We suggest prescribing one antibiotic active against P. nems [138, 139].
aeruginosa for the empiric treatment of suspected VAP A large number of observational studies suggest that inade-
in patients without risk factors for antimicrobial resistance quate and/or delayed treatment is associated with higher mortal-
who are being treated in ICUs where <10% of gram-nega- ity rates in patients with VAP [118, 140–143]. In a meta-analysis
tive isolates are resistant to the agent being considered for of 9 observational studies (813 patients), inadequate antibiotic
monotherapy (weak recommendation, low-quality therapy for VAP was associated with a higher risk of death
evidence). (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51–3.62) [141].
6. In patients with suspected VAP, we suggest avoiding amino- Our systematic review did not identify randomized con-
glycosides if alternative agents with adequate gram-negative trolled trials (RCTs) comparing regimens with and without
activity are available (weak recommendation, low-quality agents active against one or more of the potentially resistant
evidence). pathogens commonly associated with VAP. Nonetheless, the

breadth of studies associating inadequate and delayed therapy These agents are active against Pseudomonas and other gram-
with poor outcomes suggests that empiric treatment regimens negative bacteria, but their effectiveness against VAP has yet to
for VAP should include agents likely to be active against these be determined [185].
pathogens. We performed a series of meta-analyses comparing each class
of antibiotics against all other classes to evaluate whether any
Gram-Positive Coverage
particular class of antibiotics might be superior to another.
There are limited data to inform the choice between different
For each class, we identified all RCTs that included the antibi-
agents active against MRSA. Vancomycin and linezolid have
otic class of interest in one study arm vs agents from any other
been best studied. Meta-analyses of RCTs comparing vancomy-
class in the comparison arm. These trials were combined using
cin and linezolid suggest that they are associated with similar
random-effects models. Summary risk ratios for mortality, clin-
clinical outcomes [144–147] (see section XV). Other theoretical
ical response, acquired resistance, and adverse events are pre-
choices include teicoplanin, telavancin, ceftaroline, and tedizol-
sented in the supplementary materials [21].
id [148–150]. Two randomized clinical trials evaluated teicopla-
There were no significant differences in mortality, clinical re-
nin vs vancomycin or linezolid for gram-positive infections
sponse, acquired resistance, or adverse events for patients ran-
[151, 152]. However, multiple sites of infection were included
domized to cephalosporin vs noncephalosporin regimens or
in both studies and small numbers of patients with pneumonia
antipseudomonal penicillin vs non-antipseudomonal penicillin
were evaluated, and a small number of patients with docu-
regimens.
mented MRSA pneumonia were evaluated. Thus, more evi-
Our meta-analysis of 9 trials including 2174 patients on car-
dence is needed to define the clinical role of teicoplanin in

bapenem-based regimens demonstrated a 22% relative decrease
patients with HAP/VAP. Two RCTs comparing telavancin
in mortality with carbapenem-based regimens compared to reg-
and vancomycin found similar outcomes for both agents,
imens without carbapenems (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, .65–.95;
but <10% of patients in these trials had MRSA VAP, and pa-
I 2 = 0%; P = .01) [155, 159, 161, 163, 167, 168, 173, 182, 183].
tients with moderate to severe renal dysfunction (creatinine
The pooled mortality rate in the carbapenem arm was 13.9%,
clearance <50 mL/min) randomized to telavancin had higher
vs 17.8% in the noncarbapenem arm, for an absolute reduction
mortality rates [148, 153, 154]. There are no published RCTs
of 3.9% (95% CI, .8–7.0). However, there were no differences be-
evaluating ceftaroline or tedizolid for the treatment of MRSA
tween carbapenems vs noncarbapenems in clinical response
VAP. Daptomycin is inactivated by surfactant and is therefore
rates or adverse event rates. In addition, the published studies
not used for treatment of pneumonia. RCTs comparing tige-
did not consistently report the rates of subsequent C. difficile in-
cycline to imipenem and ceftobiprole to ceftazidime noted
fection and acquired carbapenem resistance.
significantly lower clinical cure rates among VAP patients
Patients randomized to aminoglycoside-containing regimens
randomized to tigecycline and ceftobiprole, respectively
had similar mortality rates but lower clinical response rates
[155, 156].
compared to patients treated with aminoglycoside-free regi-
Gram-Negative Coverage mens (56% vs 68%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, .71–.95). Patients ran-
Potential options to cover gram-negatives are more varied. domized to quinolone-containing regimens had similar
We identified 29 RCTs comparing different gram-negative mortality and clinical response rates but slightly fewer adverse
regimens for empiric treatment of VAP [155–183]. The events compared to those randomized to quinolone-free regi-
regimens tested varied considerably but included compari- mens (24% vs 27%; RR, 0.88; 95% CI, .78–.99).
sons within and between carbapenems, cephalosporins, anti-
pseudomonal penicillins, aminoglycosides, quinolones, Combination Versus Monotherapy for Empiric Gram-Negative
aztreonam, and tigecycline either alone or in combination. In- Coverage of Suspected VAP
dividually, none of these trials reported significant differences We evaluated whether there was a difference in outcomes in pa-
in clinical response or mortality rates between comparator tients randomized to one vs 2 antipseudomonal agents. We
arms with the exceptions of tigecycline and doripenem, identified 7 eligible trials [160–162, 170, 171, 176, 181]. There
which were both associated with worse outcomes [155, 158]. were no differences in mortality, clinical response, adverse ef-
We did not identify any RCTs assessing colistin as empiric fects, or acquired resistance between the monotherapy and
therapy for VAP, but a systematic review and meta-regression combination arms. However, many of these studies excluded
of observational studies comparing colistin to other antibiot- patients with comorbid illnesses and patients known to be col-
ics found no differences in clinical response rates, mortality, onized with resistant pathogens. A number of the studies also
or nephrotoxicity [184]. The US FDA recently approved 2 new allowed adjunctive empiric coverage for Pseudomonas until pa-
cephalosporin–β-lactamase combinations, ceftolozane- tients’ actual pathogens were identified. These factors limit the
tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam, for the treatment of applicability of these studies to the selection of empiric regi-
complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections. mens in unselected patients with suspected VAP.
Gram Stains empiric coverage should include an agent active against
The role of Gram stains in guiding empiric therapy for VAP is MRSA and at least 2 agents active against gram-negative organ-
unclear. Some studies suggest that the absence of gram-positive isms, including P. aeruginosa. The rationale for including 2
organisms on Gram stain makes it less likely that S. aureus will gram-negative agents in empiric regimens is to increase the
be cultured [186, 187]. A recent meta-analysis of observational probability that at least one agent will be active against the pa-
studies, however, found relatively poor concordance between tient’s pathogen. On the other hand, if local or regional data
Gram stains and final cultures [188]. The pooled kappa was suggest a low prevalence of MRSA and low antibiotic resistance
0.40 (95% CI, .34–.46) for gram-positive organisms and 0.30 rates among gram-negatives, then a single agent active against
(95% CI, .25–.36) for gram-negative organisms [188]. We did both P. aeruginosa and MSSA or one agent active against
not identify RCTs evaluating the use of Gram stains to inform MSSA combined with one agent active against Pseudomonas
empiric treatment choices. and other gram-negatives is likely adequate [162].
Empiric therapies should be informed by patient-specific risk
S. aureus Surveillance Screening
factors for antimicrobial-resistant pathogens and the distribu-
Many hospitals perform surveillance screening for MRSA in
tion of pathogens and antibiotic resistance in the local practice
some or all inpatients. The sensitivities of MRSA screens vary
environment [131, 133]. Not all patients require maximal em-
considerably by anatomical site and by method of isolation
piric coverage (see Table 3 for specific antibiotic recommenda-
(nares vs oropharynx, conventional culture vs polymerase
tions). Patient-specific factors to consider include prior culture
chain reaction) [189]. Observational data suggest that concur-
results and antimicrobial resistance patterns, recent antibiotic
rent or recent positive MRSA screens increase the likelihood

exposures, time since hospital admission, and severity of illness.
that clinical infection is due to MRSA [45, 190]. This association
The risk factors for antibiotic-resistant pathogens are listed in
is strongest, however, for skin and soft tissue infections. Only
Table 2. The positive predictive values of individual risk factors
about 30% of respiratory infections are due to MRSA in patients
for drug resistance are variable and imperfect; hence, clinicians
with positive MRSA surveillance studies [44, 46]. Likewise, neg-
should also consider the local prevalence of drug-resistant path-
ative MRSA surveillance studies need to be interpreted within
ogens when choosing empiric regimens. Coverage for MRSA
the context of the local prevalence of MRSA. In settings with
and resistant gram-negative bacilli may still be appropriate in
low prevalence of respiratory infections due to MRSA, a nega-
a patient without specific risk factors for resistant pathogens
tive nasal screen further suggests that pneumonia is unlikely to
if the local prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens is
be due to MRSA and that anti-MRSA coverage can be withheld
high. Conversely, narrow-spectrum coverage may be appropri-
[190]. In settings with higher prevalence rates of MRSA, a neg-
ate for patients without specific risk factors for antibiotic-
ative screen decreases the probability that infection is due to
resistant pathogens being treated in locations with a low
MRSA but does not rule out the possibility [44, 46]. In these set-
prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms.
tings, some studies have found that up to 75% of critically ill
There are no data to pinpoint what specific organism fre-
patients with MRSA lower respiratory tract infections have neg-
quencies or antibiotic resistance rates should be used when de-
ative nasal culture surveillance screens for MRSA [46]. We did
signing empiric regimens to assure coverage. The panel suggests
not identify any RCTs evaluating the use of MRSA screening to
that ICU-level S. aureus methicillin resistance rates of >10%–
inform empiric treatment choices for VAP.
20% merit selecting a gram-positive agent active against
Rationale for the Recommendations MRSA, and that ICU-level gram-negative resistance rates of
Selecting empiric treatments for clinically suspected VAP is a >10% to an agent being considered for empiric gram-negative
difficult balancing act between starting adequate antibiotics monotherapy merit using 2 gram-negative agents for empiric
early and limiting superfluous coverage. Delaying treatment therapy of suspected VAP. The reason for the lower threshold
and failing to cover patients’ causative pathogens are both asso- for gram-negatives compared with gram-positives is because
ciated with higher mortality rates Conversely, broader coverage gram-negatives are more frequently implicated in VAP; hence,
and longer treatment courses increase the risks of adverse drug there is increased risk for inadequate empiric gram-negative
effects, C. difficile infections, and antimicrobial resistance [191, coverage. The panel recognizes that calculating the total VAP
192]. The generally recommended compromise is to pair early gram-negative resistance rate to a potential antibiotic choice
and aggressive treatment with early and aggressive de-escalation may be challenging because it requires knowing both the local
(see section XXIII) [68, 84, 120, 193–197]. prevalence of organisms associated with VAP and their resis-
National and international surveillance data suggest that a tance rates to all potential antibiotic choices. For hospitals
considerable fraction of VAP is attributable to MRSA and resis- that are unable to calculate their gram-negative VAP resistance
tant gram-negatives. Unless local or regional data demons- rate for each antibiotic, the resistance rate for Pseudomonas is a
trating pathogen and/or antimicrobial resistance patterns reasonable, albeit conservative, proxy as Pseudomonas is the
significantly different from the rates listed above are available, most common gram-negative organism associated with VAP

and tends to have higher resistance rates than other gram-negatives resistant pathogens and patients at increased risk for resistant
commonly causing VAP. pathogens. It was the panel’s belief that these data then are
The thresholds selected by the panel were chosen to try to most applicable to patients at low risk for resistant pathogens
minimize the probability of inappropriate coverage while recog- or in whom resistant pathogens have been excluded. These
nizing that indiscriminate use of broad-spectrum coverage for data do suggest, however, that once a pathogen has been iden-
all patients in all settings is not necessary and is potentially tified and susceptibilities are known, there is no reason to con-
harmful. In arriving at these thresholds, the panel considered tinue combination therapy.
the number of patients that would need to be treated to benefit The panel did not specifically recommend carbapenems as
one individual. For example, if the average prevalence of S. au- the empiric agent of choice for VAP despite our meta-analysis
reus in VAP is approximately 25%, then a methicillin resistance suggesting that carbapenems may be associated with lower
rate of 10%–20% implies that only 2.5%–5% of VAPs will be due mortality rates in VAP. The panel was concerned because all
to MRSA and the vast majority of patients will not benefit from of the carbapenem studies only evaluated patients for short-
MRSA coverage. Higher prevalence rates of MRSA, however, in- term outcomes. Many studies now associate carbapenems
crease the percentage of patients likely to benefit from MRSA with selection of C. difficile and antibiotic-resistant organisms
coverage. We acknowledge that, given the lack of data to inform at both the individual patient and hospital levels, includ-
optimal thresholds for broadening coverage, individual units ing organisms resistant to agents other than carbapenems
can adjust these thresholds in accordance with local values [199–209]. Furthermore, despite the lower number of studies
and preferences. We note that other infectious disease guide- collecting and reporting the development of carbapenem resis-

lines have suggested a similar threshold to inform empiric an- tance (only 7 studies), our standard meta-analysis showed a
tibiotic choices [198]. We believe that further research on trend for an increased risk of developing resistance (RR,
optimal thresholds for selecting broad vs narrow empiric regi- 1.40; 95% CI, .95–2.06; P = .08), and our Bayesian analyses
mens is an important priority. showed a 96% probability of developing carbapenem resis-
The panel recommended vancomycin or linezolid for empir- tance with the use of empiric carbapenem. It is therefore pos-
ic MRSA coverage, vs other agents, based on the many trials sible that short-term mortality benefits may be outweighed by
comparing these agents. Because the effects of vancomycin long-term harms. Of note, a significant increase in antibiotic re-
and linezolid on clinical outcomes appear to be similar, the sistance and a lack of survival benefits with carbapenems com-
final choice should rest upon other factors such as blood cell pared to other antibiotics was observed by our panel’s analysis
counts, renal function, concurrent prescriptions for serotonin- of the treatment of HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa (see section
reuptake inhibitors, and cost. XVI). Finally, carbapenem resistance rates have risen since the
The panel suggested that monotherapy with an agent active publication of many of the studies included in our analysis
against both MSSA and Pseudomonas may be adequate in pa- [210–212], and hence a blanket recommendation in favor of car-
tients without risk factors for antimicrobial-resistant pathogens bapenems may not be suitable for many contemporary ICUs. We
receiving treatment in units with low prevalence rates of MRSA believe this is a critical area for future research.
and resistant gram-negatives. Possible agents include piperacil- The panel suggested avoiding aminoglycosides when alterna-
lin-tazobactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, imipenem, or merope- tive agents with adequate gram-negative activity are available
nem. The panel cautions clinicians that quinolone resistance because of aminoglycosides’ poor lung penetration, increased
is slightly more common in MSSA vs resistance to the other op- risk of nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity, and our meta-analysis
tions. If infection is confirmed to be due to MSSA, the panel suggesting that they are associated with poorer clinical response
suggests selecting a narrower-spectrum agent with less likeli- rates compared with other classes.
hood of inducing resistance such as cefazolin, oxacillin, or Although there are no randomized trials assessing polymyx-
nafcillin. ins (colistin or polymyxin B) as empiric therapy for VAP, poly-
The panel suggested using 2 antipseudomonal agents from 2 myxins may yet be a reasonable component of empiric
different classes for empiric treatment of patients with risk fac- regimens in units with high rates of resistance to agents from
tors for antibiotic-resistant pathogens as well as patients receiv- other classes [184]. In some ICUs, organisms sensitive to colis-
ing care in units where >10% of VAPs are resistant to an agent tin alone are responsible for >20% of gram-negative VAP [213].
being considered for monotherapy. We made this suggestion In ICUs operating under these difficult conditions, including
despite the panel’s meta-analysis suggesting no difference in colistin in empiric regimens may increase the frequency of ini-
mortality, clinical response, adverse effects, or acquired resis- tially appropriate empiric antibiotic treatment. However, there
tance rates between regimens with one antipseudomonal are limited data on how this might affect nephrotoxicity rates,
agent vs 2. The panel was concerned that the trial data we re- colistin resistance, and mortality rates over the long term. Over-
viewed do not apply to all patients with VAP because most of use of polymyxins may jeopardize its current role as the gram-
the studies specifically excluded patients colonized with negative antibiotic of last resort.
Finally, the panel strongly encourages clinicians to consider enrolled patients predominantly in North America, Europe,
all relevant, available data about both their individual patient and Asia, with a small percentage from South America. A
and their practice environment to tailor empiric choices for meta-analysis determined the following frequencies of potentially
each patient. Factors to consider include the clinician’s confi- drug-resistant pathogens: non-glucose-fermenting gram-negative
dence about whether or not the patient truly has pneumonia, bacilli (19% [95% CI, 15%–24%] of isolates, with Pseudomonas
the patient’s risk factors for drug-resistant pathogens, the pa- species accounting for 13% [95% CI, 10%–17%] and Acineto-
tient’s drug allergies and severity of illness, results from prior bacter species accounting for 4% [95% CI, 2%–6%]), enteric
clinical cultures, results of MRSA screening, the morphology gram-negative bacilli (16% [95% CI, 13%–20%] of isolates), S.
and quantity of organisms on Gram stains, and the local distri- aureus (16% [95% CI, 12%–21%] of isolates), MRSA (10%
bution of organisms and resistance patterns associated with [95% CI 6%–14%] of isolates), and MSSA (6% of isolates).
VAP. Some of these factors could reasonably cause a clinician There was considerable variation in the rates of isolation of spe-
to include coverage for MRSA even if the local prevalence of cific pathogens across studies, but the study year and geographic
methicillin resistance is <10%–20% (for example, if the patient area did not account for the variation, with the possible exception
is severely ill and has a good-quality ETA Gram stain dense with of Acinetobacter species. Acinetobacter species increased in prev-
gram-positive cocci and a recent positive surveillance nasal alence from studies published between 1994 and 1999 to studies
screen for MRSA). Conversely, some factors could also reason- published between 2006 and 2012, and are a more common
ably support a decision to omit MRSA coverage even within a cause of HAP in Asia than in Europe and the United States.
unit with relatively high rates of antibiotic resistance (eg, if the One study was not included in the meta-analysis because the

clinical suspicion for pneumonia is relatively low, the patient is number of observations could not be determined [139]; however,
not severely ill and has no risk factors for drug-resistant path- exclusion of the study was inconsequential as the results of the
ogens, and a good-quality Gram stain of pulmonary secretions study and meta-analysis were concordant.
shows gram-negative bacilli alone). The systematic review had limitations that should be consid-
ered before applying the findings to clinical practice. There was
Research Needs
significant variation among studies regarding whether or not
There is a pressing need for more data to guide the selection of
patients who were immunosuppressed or did not have a con-
broad- vs narrow-spectrum empiric regimens. More data are
firmed pathogen were included; inclusion of only patients
also needed on the differential impact of different empiric reg- with positive microbiologic results may bias the data to reflect
imens on antimicrobial resistance rates and long-term out-
the sickest patients, as severely ill patients are more likely to
comes at the individual and population levels, such as
have positive microbiology and more likely to have infection
mortality and antibiotic resistance.
with drug-resistant organisms [27, 232, 233]. There was also
XI. Should Selection of an Empiric Antibiotic Regimen for HAP (Non- variation in the unit of analysis (ie, the patient or the isolate).
VAP) Be Guided by Local Antibiotic Resistance Data? Because specific antibiotic sensitivities were not reported in
Recommendations most studies, the results reflect potentially antibiotic-resistant
organisms, not actual antibiotic resistance rates.
1. We recommend that all hospitals regularly generate and dis-
Antimicrobial flora and resistance patterns can vary consid-
seminate a local antibiogram, ideally one that is tailored to
erably among countries, regions, hospitals, ICUs within a hos-
their HAP population, if possible.
pital, and specimen sources (ie, pulmonary vs other specimens)
2. We recommend that empiric antibiotic regimens be based
[32, 131, 132]. This was illustrated by an observational study that
upon the local distribution of pathogens associated with
enrolled 405 patients who were consecutively admitted to the
HAP and their antimicrobial susceptibilities.
medical, surgical, or trauma ICU of a large academic medical
Remarks: The frequency with which the distribution of path-
center and then followed prospectively for 3 months. There
ogens and their antimicrobial susceptibilities are updated
were significant differences in antibiotic susceptibility among
should be determined by the institution. Considerations
ICUs for S. aureus, Enterococcus species, Acinetobacter species,
should include their rate of change, resources, and the
Enterobacter species, Klebsiella species, and Pseudomonas spe-
amount of data available for analysis.
cies [132]. However, another study found that resistance rates
Summary of the Evidence measured in overall hospital antibiograms are reflected in the
We performed a systematic review of both randomized trials resistance rates found in ICU-acquired infections, although
and observational studies to determine the prevalence of infect- the frequency of MRSA might be underestimated [133].
ing organisms in HAP. Studies published prior to 2000 were ex-
cluded because of changes in resistance patterns and organism Rationale for the Recommendations
prevalence over time. We selected 24 studies that provided rel- To balance the competing goals of providing early appropri-
evant data [11, 89, 92, 139, 155, 179, 214–231]. The studies ate antibiotic coverage and avoiding superfluous treatment

that may lead to antibiotic resistance and other adverse the above agents is used (weak recommendation, very
consequences, one approach involves preferentially providing low-quality evidence).
broad antimicrobial therapy to patients with the greatest 2. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically, we
need for such therapy, such as those with risk factors for recommend prescribing antibiotics with activity against
antimicrobial-resistant pathogens and those in an environ- P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli (strong recom-
ment where antibiotic-resistant pathogens are common mendation, very low-quality evidence).
[131, 133].
Identifying patients who are in an environment where anti- i. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically
biotic-resistant pathogens are common requires that both local and have factors increasing the likelihood for Pseudomo-
prevalence and antibiotic resistance patterns be determined. nas or other gram-negative infection (ie, prior intrave-
The distribution of pathogens and antibiotic-resistance patterns nous antibiotic use within 90 days; also see Remarks) or
associated with HAP should ideally be determined using local a high risk for mortality, we suggest prescribing antibiot-
data from each medical unit, if possible, because antimicrobial ics from 2 different classes with activity against P. aerugi-
flora and resistance patterns vary considerably among coun- nosa (weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence).
tries, regions, hospitals, ICUs, and specimen sources. The (Risk factors for mortality include need for ventilatory
guideline panel agreed that the use of local antibiograms to in- support due to HAP and septic shock). All other
form antibiotic selection is the preferred approach to initiating patients with HAP who are being treated empirically
early appropriate antibiotic coverage while avoiding superfluous may be prescribed a single antibiotic with activity against

treatment. P. aeruginosa.
ii. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically,
XII. What Antibiotics Are Recommended for Empiric Treatment of we recommend not using an aminoglycoside as the sole
Clinically Suspected HAP (Non-VAP)? antipseudomonal agent (strong recommendation, very
Recommendations (See Table 4 for Specific Antibiotic low-quality evidence).
Recommendations) Values and Preferences: These recommendations are a
1. For patients being treated empirically for HAP, we recom- compromise between the competing goals of providing
mend prescribing an antibiotic with activity against S. aureus early appropriate antibiotic coverage and avoiding super-
(strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence). (See fluous treatment that may lead to adverse drug effects,
below for recommendations regarding empiric coverage of C. difficile infections, antibiotic resistance, and increased
MRSA vs MSSA.) cost.
i. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically Remarks: The 20% threshold for deciding whether or not
and have either a risk factor for MRSA infection (ie, to target MRSA or MSSA was chosen in an effort to bal-
prior intravenous antibiotic use within 90 days, hospitali- ance the need for effective initial antibiotic therapy against
zation in a unit where >20% of S. aureus isolates are meth- the risks of excessive antibiotic use; when implementing
icillin resistant, or the prevalence of MRSA is not known, these recommendations, individual units may elect to
or who are at high risk for mortality, we suggest prescrib- modify this threshold. If patient has structural lung dis-
ing an antibiotic with activity against MRSA (weak recom- ease increasing the risk of gram-negative infection (ie,
mendation, very low-quality evidence). (Risk factors for bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis), 2 antipseudomonal
mortality include need for ventilatory support due to agents are recommended. A high-quality Gram stain
HAP and septic shock). from a respiratory specimen with numerous and pre-
ii. For patients with HAP who require empiric coverage for dominant gram-negative bacilli provides further sup-
MRSA, we recommend vancomycin or linezolid rather port for the diagnosis of a gram-negative pneumonia,
than an alternative antibiotic (strong recommendation, including fermenting and non-glucose-fermenting
low-quality evidence). microorganisms.
iii. For patients with HAP who are being treated empirically
and have no risk factors for MRSA infection and are not at Summary of the Evidence
high risk of mortality, we suggest prescribing an antibiotic With respect to whether patients with HAP should be empiri-
with activity against MSSA. When empiric coverage for cally treated for S. aureus, our meta-analysis of 23 studies de-
MSSA (and not MRSA) is indicated, we suggest a regimen scribed above (see section XI) found that MRSA and MSSA
including piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, were associated with 10% and 6% of cases of HAP, respectively.
imipenem, or meropenem. Oxacillin, nafcillin, or cefazo- Inadequate initial treatment of S. aureus may be associated with
lin are preferred for the treatment of proven MSSA, but increased mortality according to an observational study of 165
are not necessary for empiric coverage of HAP if one of patients with HAP. The study found that inadequate antibiotic
therapy was associated with increased total mortality (75% vs Given the association of aminoglycoside therapy with adverse
22%; RR, 10.41; 95% CI, 2.01–53.95) and increased mortality effects in patients with VAP, the panel was concerned that sim-
due to pneumonia (50% vs 15.1%; RR, 4.92; 95% CI, 1.31– ilar effects may occur in HAP. Several of the antimicrobial reg-
18.49) [11]. This study is indirect evidence that failure to ade- imens used in the trials included aminoglycosides. Although
quately target S. aureus increases mortality because the study side effects were not compared to other regimens, the incidence
identified the causative pathogen in only one-third of cases of renal failure and vertigo/tinnitus in patients with HAP who
and, among the cases in which the pathogen was identified, received an aminoglycoside-containing regimen was 3% and
<10% were due to S. aureus. 2%, respectively [229, 235].
With respect to selection of an antibiotic once the decision is Although not available in the United States, ceftobiprole is a
made to target MRSA, the guideline panel found limited evi- new cephalosporin with in vitro activity against common HAP
dence specific to patients with HAP that compared different pathogens, including MRSA, Enterobacter species, and P. aeru-
regimens. The panel, therefore, decided that the most appropri- ginosa. In a study of 781 patients with nosocomial pneumonia,
ate evidence to inform its judgments was the comparisons of including 571 with HAP, ceftobiprole had a similar clinical cure
various regimens described above for VAP, which found no dif- rate and microbiological eradication rate to those of the combi-
ferences in clinical outcomes when vancomycin was compared nation of ceftazidime and linezolid for HAP (but not VAP). Ad-
to linezolid (see section XV). junctive antipseudomonal therapy was provided to patients
With respect to whether patients with HAP should be empir- with suspected or proven Pseudomonas infection [156].
ically treated for P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli, The guideline panel had very low confidence in the following

the meta-analysis of 23 studies described above found that bodies of evidence: (1) the estimated prevalence of various path-
P. aeruginosa was associated with 13% of cases of HAP, and ogens, because the estimates are based upon a meta-analysis
other gram-negative bacilli were associated with 22% of cases. that included studies with risk of bias; (2) the estimated effects
Inadequate initial treatment of P. aeruginosa and other gram- of inadequate antibiotic therapy on non–mechanically ventilat-
negative bacilli may be associated with increased mortality ed patients with HAP due to P. aeruginosa and other gram-
according to the observational study of 165 patients with negative bacilli, since the study was an observational study
HAP described above. [11]. However, this study constitutes in- that was limited by indirectness of the population (the popula-
direct evidence that failure to adequately target P. aeruginosa tion of interest was patients with HAP due to P. aeruginosa and
and other gram-negative bacilli increases mortality because other gram-negative bacilli, but the population studied was
the study identified the causative pathogen in only one-third patients with HAP due to a variety of pathogens) [11]; (3) the
of cases; among the cases in which the pathogen was identified, estimated effects of various empiric regimens (including mono-
<50% were due to P. aeruginosa or other gram-negative bacilli. therapy vs combination therapy) because they were based upon
With respect to whether to use a single antibiotic or 2 anti- meta-analyses of randomized trials with risk of bias and very
biotics to target P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli in serious indirectness (the indirectness reflects the fact that the
HAP, we found limited evidence that addressed this question in trials were performed in patients with HAP in different settings
patients with HAP. using different protocols and different regimens); (4) the esti-
With respect to the preferred antibiotic regimen, our system- mated adverse effects of aminoglycosides because they were
atic review identified 10 randomized trials that compared not compared to a control group (ie, a case series within a ran-
empiric antibiotic regimens in adult populations in which at domized trial [229, 235]); (5) the study that evaluated the effects
least two-thirds of the patients had HAP rather than VAP of inadequate antibiotic therapy on patients with HAP due to
[153, 155, 177, 179, 183, 214, 229, 234–236]. Four trials compared S. aureus, as the study was an observational study that was lim-
carbapenems to piperacillin-tazobactam [179, 183, 229, 235], ited by indirectness of the population (the population of interest
5 trials compared a cephalosporin to various alternative anti- was patients with HAP due to S. aureus, but the population
biotics [177, 214, 237–239], and 2 compared a new antimicro- studied was patients with HAP due to a variety of pathogens
bial (televancin or tigecycline) to an alternative antibiotic [11]); and (6) the estimates derived from comparisons of van-
[153, 155]. Our meta-analysis of the 4 trials that compared comycin to linezolid because they were determined by a meta-
carbapenems to piperacillin-tazobactam revealed no differ- analyses of randomized trials, which were limited by a risk of
ence in mortality (RR for carbapenems, 0.94; 95% CI, .66– bias and indirectness (see section XV). The indirectness refers
1.34). The remaining 6 trials could not be pooled; however, to the meta-analyses including patients with VAP, whereas the
all of the trials found that no specific antimicrobial regimens population of interest was patients with HAP.
demonstrated better outcomes than comparator regimens
with the exception of one trial, which had important limita- Rationale for the Recommendations
tions and in which the difference may not have been clinically The evidence indicated that 16% (95% CI, 12%–21%) of HAP
significant [177]. cases are caused by S. aureus. The guideline panel agreed that

this frequency was sufficient to recommend that all empiric reg- linezolid on clinical outcomes are similar, the final choice
imens include an antibiotic with activity against S. aureus, par- rests upon factors such as blood cell counts, concurrent pre-
ticularly in light of evidence that inadequate treatment of scriptions for serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, renal function,
S. aureus may increase mortality. In other words, the panel and cost.
judged that the benefit of potentially decreasing mortality out- Patients with HAP who have no risk factors for either MRSA
weighs the additional side effects, burdens, and cost of including infection or a poor clinical outcome may receive an empiric reg-
an antibiotic with activity against S. aureus. The recommenda- imen that includes an antibiotic targeting MSSA. Of note, some
tion is strong despite the very low quality of evidence because agents that may be included in empiric regimens for HAP due
the panel judged that the upsides of the recommendation are to their activity against P. aeruginosa and gram-negative bacilli
more important to patients than the downsides and, therefore, are also suitable for empiric coverage against MSSA. These in-
most well-informed patients would want to receive the addi- clude piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, levofloxacin, imipe-
tional antibiotic. nem, and meropenem. An empiric antimicrobial regimen that
The guideline panel agreed that the finding that 10% (95% CI includes one of these agents does not require an additional
6%–14%) of HAP cases are attributable to MRSA was insuffi- agent to target MSSA. If infection with MSSA alone is con-
cient justification to use an antibiotic that targets MRSA in all firmed, oxacillin, nafcillin, and cefazolin are narrow-spectrum
patients with HAP. Factors that the panel considered included intravenous antibiotics that are optimal for treating MSSA.
the following: HAP patients tend to be less severely ill than VAP The evidence indicated that approximately 35% of HAP cases
patients and, therefore, the negative consequences of initial in- are caused by gram-negative bacilli. The panel agreed that this

appropriate antibiotic therapy are likely less severe than with high prevalence, combined with the possibility that inadequate
VAP patients [92, 219, 222]; culture data are often not obtained treatment increases mortality, dictates that all empiric regimens
in patients with HAP because adequate sputum samples can be target P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli. In other
difficult to obtain and, therefore, clinicians are likely to continue words, the panel judged that the benefit of potentially decreas-
the initial broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen for the entire ing mortality outweighs the side effects, burdens, and cost of
course of therapy as there are no culture data to support de- targeting P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli. The rec-
escalation; and lack of de-escalation increases the likelihood of ommendation is strong despite the very low quality of evidence,
acquiring antibiotic resistance. because the panel judged that the upsides of the recommenda-
Instead, the panel agreed that empiric coverage of MRSA tion are more important to patients than the downsides and,
should be reserved for patients with HAP who have either fac- therefore, most well-informed patients would want antibiotics
tors increasing the likelihood for MRSA infection or a high risk with activity against P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative
for mortality. Our analyses revealed intravenous antibiotic treat- bacilli.
ment during the prior 90 days as a risk factor for MRSA noso- With respect to whether the empiric regimen should include
comial pneumonia. Other factors that probably increase one antibiotic or 2 antibiotics with activity against P. aerugino-
likelihood of MRSA pneumonia include prior known MRSA sa, the guideline panel considered indirect evidence from pa-
colonization detected via nasal or respiratory cultures or non- tients with VAP. Similar to its decision making with VAP, the
culture screening [45, 190] and a high-quality Gram stain show- panel was concerned about applying this evidence to all patients
ing numerous and predominant gram-positive cocci in clusters with HAP because most of the studies excluded patients at in-
with the morphology of Staphylococcus species [187, 240]. Hos- creased risk for resistant pathogens. It was the panel’s impres-
pitalization in a unit where >20% of S. aureus isolates are meth- sion that the data are most applicable to patients who are at low
icillin resistant or the prevalence of MRSA is not known risk for resistant pathogens or in whom resistant pathogens
increases a priori the risk of MRSA compared with hospitals have been excluded. The panel concluded that patients with
where MRSA is known to be rare. The 20% threshold for decid- HAP with factors increasing the likelihood of gram-negative in-
ing whether or not to target MRSA or MSSA was arbitrarily fection, including Pseudomonas, or increased risk for mortality
chosen by the panel in an attempt to balance the need for effec- should receive antibiotics from 2 different classes with activity
tive initial antibiotic therapy against the risks of excessive anti- against P. aeruginosa, whereas patients without these factors
biotic use. A high risk for mortality was defined by the guideline should receive only one such antibiotic. The panel agreed that
panel as requiring ventilatory support due to pneumonia and this approach was an appropriate balance between the compet-
having septic shock. ing goals of providing early appropriate antibiotic coverage to
The guideline panel prefers vancomycin or linezolid for pa- improve clinical outcomes such as mortality while avoiding
tients whose empiric antibiotic regimen will include an agent superfluous treatment that may lead to antibiotic resistance,
that targets MRSA. This is based upon extensive clinical expe- side effects, and increased cost.
rience with these agents and the effects of these agents in pa- Factors likely increasing the probability of gram-negative in-
tients with VAP. Because the effects of vancomycin and fection, including Pseudomonas, are a high-quality Gram stain
from a respiratory specimen with numerous and predominant PHARMACOKINETIC/PHARMACODYNAMIC
gram-negative bacilli [240], and having structural lung disease OPTIMIZATION OF ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY
that is associated with Pseudomonas infection (ie, bronchiecta- XIII. Should Antibiotic Dosing Be Determined by PK/PD Data or the
sis and cystic fibrosis). Risk factors for mortality include the re- Manufacturer’s Prescribing Information in Patients With HAP/VAP?
quirement for ventilatory support due to pneumonia and Recommendation
having septic shock.
1. For patients with HAP/VAP, we suggest that antibiotic dos-
This approach will likely decrease the number of patients
ing be determined using PK/PD data, rather than the manu-
with HAP for whom 2 antibiotics with activity against P. aeru-
facturer’s prescribing information (weak recommendation,
ginosa would be recommended for initial empiric therapy, com-
pared with the recommendations from the 2005 ATS/IDSA
Values and Preferences: This recommendation places a high
HAP/VAP guidelines [1]. The panel agreed that this change is
value on improving clinical outcome by optimization of ther-
warranted, particularly in light of the growing prevalence of
apy; it places a lower value on burden and cost.
C. difficile induced by antibiotics, the public health concerns re-
Remarks: PK/PD -optimized dosing refers to the use of an-
lated to increasing antibiotic resistance, and the dearth of new
tibiotic blood concentrations, extended and continuous infu-
antibiotics. The evidence suggests that non-glucose-fermenting
sions, and weight-based dosing for certain antibiotics.
gram-negative bacilli (eg, Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter) and
enteric gram-negative bacilli account for 19% (95% CI, 15%– Summary of the Evidence
24%) and 16% (95% CI, 13%–20%), respectively, of cases of Our systematic review identified 3 randomized trials [242–

HAP. This means that even in a hospital with a high rate of 244] and 4 observational studies [245–248] that measured
antibiotic resistance (eg, 20% for non-glucose-fermenting the effects of PK/PD-optimized dosing (ie, dosing guided by
gram-negative bacilli and 10% for enteric gram-negative therapeutic drug monitoring or extended continuous intrave-
bacilli), the rate of HAP caused by antibiotic-resistant gram- nous infusion) on clinical outcomes. A meta-analysis of 3
negative bacilli will be approximately 5%. Thus, gram-negative studies (one randomized trial [244] and 2 observational stud-
monotherapy would be expected to be adequate for 95% of ies [246, 248]) determined that PK/PD-optimized dosing re-
patients with HAP. Of course, in hospitals with a high rate duced both mortality (12% vs 24%; RR, 0.49; 95% CI,
of antibiotic resistance to the agent being considered for .34–.72) and the ICU length of stay (mean difference, −2.48
monotherapy, the use of 2 antipseudomonal agents should days; 95% CI, −3.09 to −1.87 days). A meta-analysis of 5 stud-
be considered. ies (2 randomized trials [242, 243] and 3 observational studies
The panel elected to not recommend a specific antibiotic [246–248]) found that PK/PD-optimized dosing improved the
class to target P. aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli clinical cure rate (81% vs 64%; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16–1.69).
due to the lack of evidence that any regimen is superior to an- These benefits from PK/PD optimization have also been de-
other. The only exceptions are the aminoglycosides. The panel tected during the treatment of infections other than HAP/
chose to recommend against aminoglycosides in most situa- VAP [249].
tions because of the poor lung penetration and risk of nephro- PK/PD targets associated with improved clinical outcomes
toxicity and ototoxicity in the absence of improved outcomes in have been reported in observational studies. Generally speaking,
patients with HAP, coupled with the indirect evidence from pa- the PK/PD targets reported for quinolones and aminoglyco-
tients with VAP of inferior clinical outcomes and increased ad- sides are fairly consistent, whereas the PK/PD targets reported
verse effects. for β-lactams are highly variable.
Patients with early-onset HAP (variably defined as pneu- The guideline panel’s confidence in the estimated effects on
monia occurring within 4–7 days of hospital admission) mortality, ICU length of stay, and clinical cure rate in patients
have a lower rate of MDR pneumonia than patients with with HAP/VAP was very low, because most of the studies in-
late-onset HAP [228]. Still, a number of patients with early- cluded in the meta-analyses were observational studies with a
onset HAP are infected with MDR pathogens [228, 241], prob- risk of bias due to the excess influence of one observational
ably because many have risks for resistant pathogens, such as study [248]. In the mortality and ICU length-of-stay meta-
prior receipt of intravenous antibiotics. Thus, the panel did analyses, the study contributed 638 of 741 patients (86%),
not recommend different antibiotic regimens for early-onset and in the clinical cure rate meta-analysis, the study contrib-
HAP, preferring to address the specific risk factors that confer uted 638 of 908 patients (70%). In addition, the evidence is in-
increased risk in patients independent of the timing of the direct for any specific class of antibiotics or any specific
HAP. approach to PK/PD optimization, as several antibiotic classes
Although not available in the United States, ceftobiprole may and dosing strategies (eg, extended or continuous infusion
be an option for HAP monotherapy where it is available, given [242–244, 246, 247] and monitoring serum concentrations
the results of the study described above [156]. [245, 248]) were included in the studies in the meta-analyses.

Finally, the meta-analysis for clinical cure was also limited by More recently, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Qual-
inconsistency. ity (AHRQ) published a report on the use of PK/PD for HAPs,
which concluded that the evidence does not favor the routine
Rationale for the Recommendation use of PK/PD [254]. This contrasts with our guideline recom-
The guideline panel carefully weighed the potential advantages mendation. We suggest that the reasons for the different conclu-
of PK/PD-optimized dosing (decreased mortality, decreased sions between the AHRQ report and ours are related to the
ICU length of stay, and increased clinical cure rate) against following: (1) We used a distinct research question where we
the potential downsides (more burdensome and costly, possibly consolidated the studied issue into a singular PICO question,
more toxicity among patients who require higher doses due to rather than 3 questions that were considered separately in the
augmented clearance). In addition, the panel considered the AHRQ report; (2) given this difference from the AHRQ meth-
possibility that the increased clinical cure rate might lead to ods, we were able to use the meta-analytic methodology to an-
shorter courses of antibiotics and, subsequently, less antibiotic alyze the combined effects of studies, which may have given
toxicity and less antibiotic resistance. On the basis of this infor- further confidence for interpreting the relative effects of identi-
mation, the panel decided that patients with HAP/VAP should fied studies; and (3) the ATS/IDSA guideline also evaluated
have PK/PD-optimized dosing of their antimicrobial regimens, noninterventional studies that analyzed patient outcomes asso-
rather than simply following the dosing described in the man- ciated with optimized drug exposure; these studies were not
ufacturer’s prescribing information. The panel agreed that the evaluated by the AHRQ report.
potential benefits were far more important to patients than

the inconveniences and costs associated with the approach, ROLE OF INHALED ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY
and agreed that their low confidence in the estimated effects
XIV. Should Patients With VAP Due to Gram-Negative Bacilli Be Treated
of PK/PD-optimized dosing was insufficient to justify an alter- With a Combination of Inhaled and Systemic Antibiotics, or Systemic
native approach. Antibiotics Alone?
The rationale for using PK/PD-optimized dosing rather than Recommendation
following the manufacturer’s prescribing information is sound.
1. For patients with VAP due to gram-negative bacilli that are
The distribution of many antibiotics can be severely altered by
susceptible to only aminoglycosides or polymyxins (colistin
pathophysiological changes that are common to critically ill pa-
or polymyxin B), we suggest both inhaled and systemic anti-
tients, leading to altered pharmacokinetics [250]. Because the
biotics, rather than systemic antibiotics alone (weak recom-
ICU is also commonly associated with less susceptible patho-
gens, the likelihood of standard antibiotic dosing achieving de-
Values and Preferences: This recommendation places a high
sired PK/PD targets is probably reduced in critically ill patients,
value on achieving clinical cure and survival; it places a lower
which may partially explain suboptimal clinical outcomes ob-
value on burden and cost.
served in HAP/VAP [251, 252].
Remarks: It is reasonable to consider adjunctive inhaled an-
PK/PD-optimized dosing is probably more burdensome and
tibiotic therapy as a treatment of last resort for patients who
costly than conventional dosing. As an example, the most accu-
are not responding to intravenous antibiotics alone, whether
rate approach to dosing in patients with HAP/VAP requires
the infecting organism is or is not MDR.
measurement of the blood concentration of the antibiotic and
then incorporation of the result into a dosing software package Summary of the Evidence
[253]. Costs and burdens include education, blood sampling, Our systematic review identified 9 studies of inhaled antibiotics
performing the drug assay, and acquiring and updating the soft- as adjunctive therapy for VAP due to gram-negative bacilli. Five
ware. Alternative interventions, such as routine extended infu- of the studies were randomized trials and 4 were observational
sions of β-lactams or weight-based dosing of aminoglycosides, studies [125, 255–262]. Three different inhaled antibiotics were
are probably less burdensome and costly than management administered in the 9 investigations—tobramycin, gentamicin,
using the blood concentration of antibiotics, but still more bur- and colistin. Most of the studies provided minimal information
densome than conventional dosing, because clinical staff must about the device and method used to deliver the inhaled antibi-
be trained and educated. otic. The predominant organisms isolated in the studies were
No published studies describing the PK/PD of piperacillin- MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii.
tazobactam or polymyxins (colistin or polymyxin B) in patients Our meta-analyses found that the addition of an inhaled an-
with HAP/VAP are available at this time and so these drugs tibiotic to a systemic antibiotic regimen improved the clinical
were not included in this recommendation. However, the cure rate (ie, resolution of signs and symptoms of respiratory
most optimal dosing of these drugs, based on limited evidence infection) (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13–1.47), but had no definitive
and extrapolation from similar drug classes, is provided in effects on mortality (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, .63–1.12) or nephrotox-
Table 3 (see section X). icity (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, .78–1.57). There were no other harmful
effects attributed to the inhaled antibiotics. When only the trials have shown that the concentration in the serum is approximately
that evaluated colistin were pooled, the clinical cure rate similar- the MIC of Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas [267, 268]; concentra-
ly improved (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11–1.47). tions in the lung and airway are lower and, therefore, subtherapeu-
Several outcomes were reported by a few studies. One trial tic. The ongoing use of antibiotics at subtherapeutic levels may
found that inhaled antibiotics reduced the frequency of requir- lead to the selection of antibiotic-resistant organisms.
ing additional intravenous antibiotics [125]. Two studies looked
for, but did not find, increased antibiotic resistance among pa- Research Needs
tients who received an adjunctive inhaled antibiotic [125, 256]. There is an urgent need for information about the optimal delivery
Two studies reported that inhaled colistin reduces the duration and dosing of inhaled antibiotic therapy. In addition, clinical trials
of mechanical ventilation [260, 261]. The effects of adjunctive are needed that evaluate the concentrations of antibiotics that en-
inhaled antibiotics on the ICU length of stay and hospital length sure efficacy in the context of viscous purulent secretions. The du-
of stay were not evaluated. ration of systemic antibiotic therapy and antibiotic resistance are
The panel’s confidence in the estimated effects of adjunctive important endpoints for future studies. If future investigations
inhaled antibiotics was very low because a large proportion of demonstrate that adjunctive inhaled therapy decreases the duration
the evidence used to derive the estimates was observational of systemic antibiotics and lessens the emergence of resistance, this
data limited by imprecision (ie, most of the studies were could have a relevant impact on treatment decisions.
small, with the largest study including 208 patients).
PATHOGEN-SPECIFIC THERAPY

Rationale for the Recommendation XV. What Antibiotics Should Be Used for the Treatment for MRSA
The guideline panel weighed the evidence for advantages of ad- HAP/VAP?
junctive inhaled antibiotic therapy in patients with VAP due to Recommendation
gram-negative bacilli (increased clinical cure rate) against the
1. We recommend that MRSA HAP/VAP be treated with ei-
potential downsides (increased burden and cost) in the context
ther vancomycin or linezolid rather than other antibiotics
of no proven effects on mortality, side effects, or antibiotic re-
or antibiotic combinations (strong recommendation, moder-
sistance. The panel agreed that the potential benefits were more
ate-quality evidence).
important to patients than inconvenience and cost. However,
Remarks: The choice between vancomycin and linezolid may
the panel acknowledged having very low confidence in the esti-
be guided by patient-specific factors such as blood cell
mated effects of adjunctive inhaled antibiotic therapy and rec-
counts, concurrent prescriptions for serotonin-reuptake in-
ognized that there are many important unknowns (eg, optimum
hibitors, renal function, and cost.
dosing, optimum delivery method, population most likely to
benefit). For these reasons, the panel elected to recommend ad- Summary of the Evidence
junctive inhaled antibiotic therapy for patients who are most Our systematic review identified 7 randomized trials that ad-
likely to benefit: specifically, those who have VAP caused by bac- dressed the selection of antibiotics for HAP/VAP caused by
teria that are only susceptible to the classes of antibiotics for MRSA [153, 269–274]. Four trials compared linezolid to vanco-
which evidence of efficacy by the intravenous alone route is mycin [271–274]. The remaining 3 trials compared telavancin
the most limited (ie, aminoglycosides or colistin). However, [153], quinupristin plus dalfopristin [269], or vancomycin
the panel also believes that it is reasonable to consider adjunc- plus rifampin [270] to vancomycin alone.
tive inhaled antibiotic therapy as a treatment of last resort for Linezolid is the most extensively studied alternative to vanco-
patients who are not responding to intravenous antibiotics mycin for MRSA pneumonia [271–274]. Our meta-analyses of
alone, whether the infecting organism is or is not MDR. the 4 trials found no difference in mortality when analyzed
The rationale for adjunctive inhaled antibiotic therapy is using an intention-to-treat strategy (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, .71–
based in part upon the observation that antibiotic efficacy 1.16) or a modified intention-to-treat strategy (RR, 0.82; 95%
against bacteria within purulent secretions may require anti- CI, .37–1.80). We also found no difference in the clinical cure
biotic concentrations >10–25 times the minimum inhibitory rate when analyzed using an intention-to-treat strategy; howev-
concentration (MIC); these levels cannot be achieved with in- er, there was improvement of the clinical cure rate among pa-
travenous therapy alone and, therefore, the addition of inhaled tients who received linezolid when analyzed using a modified
antibiotic therapy may be beneficial [263]. The finding of low intention-to-treat strategy (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00–1.40). Use
antibiotic concentrations in the secretions and epithelial lining of a modified intention-to-treat analysis is controversial because
fluid of the lung during intravenous therapy with aminoglyco- it involves excluding patients following randomization [275].
sides is well known [264–266]. However, it also occurs with Linezolid and vancomycin appear to confer no clear difference
other antibiotics and its correlation with clinical outcomes re- in nephrotoxicity, thrombocytopenia, serious adverse events, or
mains unknown. Studies of high-dose intravenous colistin need for treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event.

None of the other trials demonstrated a clear superiority of HAP/VAP due to a variety of gram-positive organisms or pa-
an alternative antibiotic or regimen over vancomycin alone. tients with healthcare-associated non-HAP/VAP pneumonia.
The study that compared telavancin to vancomycin combined The panel decided that its overall confidence in the evidence
2 smaller trials that were conducted in patients with gram-pos- was moderate, electing to downgrade due to the serious risk
itive nosocomial pneumonia. In the combined population of of bias, but not the indirectness.
1503 patients, there were no differences in clinical cure rate, There has been concern related to the potential phenomenon
mortality, or adverse effects, although there was a trend toward known as “MIC creep,” referring to reports of a trend of increas-
increased all-cause mortality with telavancin in one of the com- ing vancomycin MICs among MRSA isolates in some institutions
ponent studies (21.5% vs 16.6%; mean difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, [279, 280]. This has not been a universal phenomenon, and sur-
−.7% to 10.6%) [153]. This primarily occurred among patients veillance studies from different countries have not demonstrated
with creatinine clearance values <30 mL/minute, prompting an such an overall increase; in general, MRSA isolates with interme-
FDA advisory panel to recommend limiting the use of telavan- diate vancomycin MICs remain uncommon [281–285]. Further-
cin to patients with creatinine clearance levels above this thresh- more, although there are theoretical reasons for concern when
old [276]. Increases in serum creatinine were more common in treating MRSA pneumonia if the isolate has intermediate
the telavancin group (16% vs 10%) [153]. MICs, there is evidence that outcomes are not worse in such pa-
A nonblinded trial that compared quinupristin plus dalfo- tients [286–288]. As with any other organism defined as interme-
pristin to vancomycin in 298 patients with gram-positive nos- diate to the selected antibiotic, a lack of clinical improvement
ocomial pneumonia found similar clinical response rates in despite appropriate antibiotic dosing and duration should

both treatment groups. This was also true for the subgroup prompt consideration of a change in antibiotic therapy.
of 51 patients with MRSA pneumonia [269]. Another non-
blinded trial compared vancomycin plus rifampin to vancomy-
The evidence indicates that vancomycin and linezolid are roughly
cin alone in 83 patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia
equivalent, and no alternative agent or regimen is clearly superior
[270]. It found that vancomycin plus rifampin increased the
to vancomycin or linezolid; additionally, alternative regimens may
14-day clinical cure rate and decreased the 60-day mortality
be more harmful. Given these observations, the guideline panel
rate, but had no effect on 28-day mortality. Of note, 34.1% of
had a high level of confidence that the benefit-risk ratio of
the patients who were treated with rifampin developed resis-
using vancomycin or linezolid to treat patients with HAP/VAP
tance to the antibiotic [270]. Although this trial did not report
caused by MRSA is higher than the ratio for alternative regimens.
significant adverse effects, other studies have reported an asso-
While a difference in nephrotoxicity risk between vancomy-
ciation of rifampin with hepatotoxicity, acute renal failure, and
cin and linezolid was not identified using the measure of abso-
hemolytic anemia [277].
lute risk difference, there was an increased RR of nephrotoxicity
Two randomized clinical trials evaluated teicoplanin vs van-
associated with vancomycin compared with linezolid. The lack
comycin or linezolid for gram-positive infections [151, 152].
of double-blinding in about half of the randomized studies may
However, multiple sites of infection were included in both stud-
have led to ascertainment bias with respect to nephrotoxicity,
ies and small numbers of patients with pneumonia were evalu-
which could have favored linezolid. It should be noted that a va-
ated, and a small number of patients with documented MRSA
riety of definitions for nephrotoxicity were used across studies
pneumonia were evaluated. Thus, more evidence is needed to
and that there were no differences in terms of serious adverse
define the clinical role of teicoplanin in patients with HAP/VAP.
events, or need for treatment discontinuation between the 2 an-
Taken together, the evidence suggests that there are no im-
tibiotics. Nonetheless, based on observational evidence, the se-
portant differences among the antibiotics available to treat
lection of vancomycin vs linezolid may depend upon factors
HAP/VAP due to MRSA with 2 exceptions: vancomycin plus
such as blood cell counts, concurrent prescriptions for seroto-
rifampin may improve the short-term clinical cure rate at the
nin-reuptake inhibitors, renal function and cost. The panel
expense of more rifampin resistance and possibly other side ef-
agrees with a prior consensus recommendation to achieve a
fects, and telavancin may be harmful in the setting of a creati-
vancomycin trough level of 15–20 mg/L in patients being treat-
nine clearance <30 mL/minute. Our confidence in the accuracy
ed for pneumonia [289], although the panel did not review the
of these estimated effects was diminished by risk of bias, which
related evidence systematically.
included lack of blinding, ineffective randomization (ie, baseline
differences), missing data, failure to follow an intention-to-treat XVI. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP
Due to P. aeruginosa?
analysis, and protocols that allowed outcomes to be overridden
Recommendations
“by the sponsor . . . all revisions were made before unblinding”
[274, 278]. It was also decreased by indirectness of the popula- 1. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa, we recom-
tion, as our population of interest was patients with HAP/VAP mend that the choice of an antibiotic for definitive (not em-
due to MRSA but many of the trials enrolled patients with piric) therapy be based upon the results of antimicrobial
susceptibility testing (strong recommendation, low-quality possible to perform this analysis for the carbapenem antibiotic
evidence). class, due to lack of comparative studies within a specific anti-
2. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa, we recom- biotic class or lack of specific data for the P. aeruginosa sub-
mend against aminoglycoside monotherapy (strong recom- group for fluoroquinolones and β-lactams.
mendation, very low-quality evidence). Doripenem: Three randomized trials were identified that com-
Remarks: Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing should pared doripenem to other antibiotic regimens in a subgroup of
include assessment of the sensitivity of the P. aeruginosa patients with P. aeruginosa [157, 158, 179]. The comparisons
isolate to polymyxins (colistin or polymyxin B) in set- were to either imipenem [157, 158] or piperacillin-tazobactam
tings that have a high prevalence of extensively resistant [179]. We pooled the subgroup analyses and found no signifi-
organisms. cant differences between doripenem and the other regimens
in terms of mortality (28% vs 21%; RR, 1.07; 95% CI, .49–
Summary of the Evidence 2.35) and treatment failure rate (45% vs 63%; RR, 0.76; 95%
Our systematic review identified no RCTs that compared anti- CI, .40–1.42). The panel’s confidence in these estimated effects
biotic regimens in patients with HAP/VAP caused by P. aerugi- was very low because they are derived from randomized trials
nosa. The panel therefore considered 2 bodies of evidence: limited by risk of bias (ie, many trials were unblinded), incon-
evidence from randomized trials that compared antibiotic reg- sistency (ie, I 2 test for heterogeneity >25%), and imprecision (ie,
imens in patients with HAP/VAP due to any pathogen, and ev- few events and wide CIs). In addition, the doripenem FDA label
idence from subgroup analyses on patients with HAP/VAP was recently modified due to this drug’s association with in-

caused by P. aeruginosa. creased risk of death in patients with VAP due to P. aeruginosa
With respect to studies that compared antibiotic regimens in [297].
patients with HAP/VAP due to any pathogen, a systematic re- Imipenem: We identified a published systematic review of 20
view of 41 randomized trials found that no specific antimicro- randomized trials that compared imipenem to an alternative
bial regimen decreased mortality and treatment failure more antibiotic in patients with P. aeruginosa [298]. Patients who re-
than any other regimen [290], and 33 randomized trials ceived imipenem had a lower clinical cure rate (45% vs 75%; RR,
found that no specific antimicrobial regimen improved a variety 0.60; 95% CI, .48–.75) and microbiological cure rate (48% vs
of clinical outcomes more than any other regimen [155–183, 53%; RR, 0.91; 95% CI, .73–1.13) than patients who received
229, 291–293]. The panel’s confidence in applying these esti- an alternative antibiotic. Among patients who received imipe-
mated effects to the clinical question was low because they are nem, antibiotic resistance increased from 15% to 39%; among
derived from randomized trials limited by risk of bias (ie, many patients who received an alternative antibiotic, antibiotic resis-
trials were not blinded) and indirectness (ie, the question is spe- tance increased from 2.5% to 22%. The panel’s confidence in
cific to patients with HAP/VAP caused by P. aeruginosa, but the these estimated effects was low because they are derived from
studies were conducted with patients who had HAP/VAP due to randomized trials limited by risk of bias (ie, many trials were
any pathogen). unblinded) and imprecision (ie, few events).
The prevalence of antibiotic resistance among patients with Other carbapenems: We identified a published systematic re-
HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa is high. An observational view of 12 randomized trials that compared a carbapenem
study of 314 patients with VAP caused by P. aeruginosa deter- (alone or in combination with an aminoglycoside) to an alter-
mined that susceptible, MDR, and extensively drug-resistant native antibiotic in patients with P. aeruginosa [299]. Most of
P. aeruginosa represented 54%, 32%, and 14% of P. aeruginosa the trials compared a carbapenem to either a fluoroquinolone
isolates, respectively [294]. In another observational study of 91 or a β-lactam. Our meta-analyses found that patients treated
episodes of VAP caused by P. aeruginosa, it was found that sus- with a carbapenem had a lower treatment success rate (6 ran-
ceptible, MDR, and extensively drug-resistant P. aeruginosa domized trials: OR, 0.42; 95% CI, .22–.82) [159, 161, 169, 183,
represented 34%, 20%, and 46% of P. aeruginosa isolates, re- 300, 301], a lower eradication rate (7 randomized trials: OR,
spectively [295]. Antibiotic resistance has been associated with 0.50; 95% CI, .24–.89) [159, 161, 169, 173, 183, 299, 300], and
an increased ICU length of stay, but not mortality or recurrence a higher incident antibiotic resistance rate (4 randomized trials:
of HAP/VAP; however, the lack of statistical power is a common OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 1.96–13.65) [173, 291, 293, 301]. Exceptions
issue with the published evidence [294]. Mortality due to HAP/ to the lower eradication rate existed when the carbapenem was
VAP is more closely associated with severity of illness than an- meropenem (3 randomized trials: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, .39–3.14)
tibiotic resistance [296]. [159, 161, 300]. The panel’s confidence in these estimated effects
With respect to studies that performed subgroup analyses on was very low because they are derived from randomized trials
patients with HAP/VAP caused by P. aeruginosa, the evidence is limited by risk of bias (ie, many trials were unblinded), incon-
probably best understood by considering each antibiotic class sistency (ie, low I 2 test for heterogeneity), and imprecision
separately. A review of 36 RCTs confirmed that it was only (ie, few events). Ertapenem has no or limited activity against

P. aeruginosa and is therefore not recommended for treatment Research Needs
of pneumonia due to this organism. There is a lack of trials that enrolled patients with HAP/VAP
Aminoglycosides: Our systematic review identified no recent caused by P. aeruginosa and compared antibiotic regimens,
trials comparing aminoglycoside monotherapy to other antimi- and subgroup analysis from trials that enrolled patients with
crobial regimens in HAP/VAP and, therefore, there were no data HAP/VAP caused by any pathogen are limited by the small
related to the effects of such therapy in patients with HAP/VAP sizes of the subgroups. There is an urgent need for multicenter
due to P. aeruginosa. trials that enroll patients with HAP/VAP caused by P. aerugino-
sa and then evaluate the benefits and harms of various antibi-
Rationale for the Recommendations otic regimens. Such trials should measure mortality, treatment
The evidence synthesis failed to identify an antipseudomonal failure, side effects, and antibiotic resistance as outcomes, and
agent that is clearly preferable to the others, due to either greater should control for variables such as severity of illness, bactere-
benefit or less harm. Thus, the panel did not recommend a pre- mia, organ failure, and aminoglycoside use.
ferred antibiotic regimen for patients with confirmed HAP/VAP
caused by P. aeruginosa. Some of the outcomes described above XVII. Should Monotherapy or Combination Therapy Be Used to Treat
suggest that imipenem may have outcomes that are inferior to Patients With HAP/VAP Due to P. aeruginosa?
other regimens (ie, a lower cure rate); however, the panel’s con- Recommendations
fidence in these results was so low that it was unwilling to sug-
1. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa who are
gest not using this agent.
not in septic shock or at a high risk for death, and for

The panel recognized that as many as two-thirds of patients
whom the results of antibiotic susceptibility testing are
with HAP/VAP caused by P. aeruginosa have antibiotic resistance
known, we recommend monotherapy using an antibiotic to
and that the prevalence of antibiotic resistance is widely variable.
which the isolate is susceptible rather than combination ther-
This variability was the primary reason that the panel agreed that
apy (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).
antibiotic choices should be based upon antimicrobial susceptibil-
2. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa who re-
ity testing. The benefits of this approach include assurance that
main in septic shock or at a high risk for death when the re-
the patient is being treated with an antibiotic with activity against
sults of antibiotic susceptibility testing are known, we suggest
the pathogen, while the downsides are the costs, burdens, and de-
combination therapy using 2 antibiotics to which the isolate
lays associated with testing. The recommendation is strong despite
is susceptible rather than monotherapy (weak recommenda-
the low quality of evidence because the panel agreed that the im-
tion, very low-quality evidence).
portance of avoiding ineffective therapy (ie, potential for harms
3. For patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa, we recom-
without benefits) far outweighs the costs, burdens, and time for
mend against aminoglycoside monotherapy (strong recom-
antibiotic susceptibility testing.
The aminoglycosides are the only exceptions with regard to the
Remarks: High risk of death in the meta-regression analysis
panel not making a recommendation for or against a specific an-
was defined as mortality risk >25%; low risk of death is defined
tibiotic class in HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa. The panel chose
as mortality risk <15%. For a patient whose septic shock
to recommend against aminoglycoside monotherapy for 2 rea-
resolves when antimicrobial sensitivities were known, contin-
sons. First, aminoglycosides penetrate the lung poorly; therefore,
ued combination therapy is not recommended.
high peak serum concentrations are necessary to obtain microbi-
ologically active concentrations in the alveoli, which increases the Summary of the Evidence
risk of nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity [266, 302, 303]. Studies have Our systematic review identified one published systematic re-
found no detectable antipseudomonal activity within bronchial view [290] and 7 randomized trials [159, 161, 162, 170, 171,
secretions despite therapeutic aminoglycoside levels in the 181, 311] that compared monotherapy to combination therapy
serum of patients with Pseudomonas pulmonary infection in the treatment of HAP/VAP due to any pathogen. The pub-
[304]. Second, there is a lack of studies evaluating the effects of lished systematic review included 41 randomized trials (7015
aminoglycoside monotherapy in HAP/VAP. patients) [290]. HAP/VAP caused by P. aeruginosa represented
Occasionally, routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing 13.8% of cases. Our meta-analysis of trials that reported mortal-
identifies no antibiotics to which P. aeruginosa is susceptible. ity determined that combination therapy offered no benefit be-
Intravenous polymyxins (colistin or polymyxin B) [305–310] yond monotherapy (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, .76–1.16); similarly, a
may be an option for the treatment of such extensively resistant meta-analysis of trials that reported the treatment failure rate
P. aeruginosa [184]. For this reason, the panel agreed that poly- determined that combination therapy was not associated with
myxin susceptibility should be routinely assessed for Pseudomo- a lower rate of treatment failure than monotherapy. Among
nas isolates in settings with a high prevalence of extensively the 7 randomized trials, 5 trials found that patients treated
resistant organisms. with combination therapy and monotherapy had similar
clinical outcomes which, depending upon the study, included complicated by septic shock may benefit from combination ther-
mortality, clinical treatment success, microbiological treatment apy [313, 314]. The panel’s confidence in these effects was also
success, and ICU and hospital length of stay [159, 161, 162, 170, low because they were based upon observational studies.
171, 181, 311]. Two trials, however, demonstrated superior out- Septic shock: The panel sought additional evidence that pa-
comes among those who received carbapenem monotherapy tients with septic shock may benefit from combination therapy
compared with those who received combination therapy [159, by looking at evidence from patients who had septic shock from
161]. The different findings in these trials might be attributable sources other than just HAP/VAP caused by P. aeruginosa. The
to the combination of the broad spectrum of carbapenems and studies identified had inconsistent results. A meta-analysis of 64
increased nephrotoxicity due to aminoglycoside-containing randomized and quasi-randomized trials (7586 patients with
combination therapy. culture-positive bacterial septic shock) that compared β-lactam
Taken together, the efficacy information provided by the sys- monotherapy to combination therapy with a β-lactam and ami-
tematic review and most randomized trials was remarkably sim- noglycoside in hospitalized patients with sepsis determined that
ilar, finding no differences between monotherapy and there was no difference in mortality, regardless of whether the
combination therapy for mortality, treatment failure, ICU and trial arms included the same β-lactam (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, .75–
hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and 1.35) or different β-lactams (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, .71–1.01) [315].
acquisition of resistance. The panel’s confidence that these esti- In contrast, a propensity-matched analysis (2446 patients)
mates apply to the clinical question was low because there was a found that early combination therapy was associated with de-
risk of bias (many trials were unblinded) and because the trials creased mortality in septic shock [314].

enrolled patients with HAP/VAP due to any pathogen. The lat- A potential reason for the discordant results is that the stud-
ter introduces indirectness of the population, as the clinical ies did not require specific criteria to define the patients as hav-
question was about patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aerugino- ing septic shock. It is possible that the benefits of combination
sa, but only 6%–23% of the population in the trials had HAP/ therapy were diluted by including less severely ill patients in the
VAP due to P. aeruginosa. Additional limitations that the panel studies. This is supported by a meta-analysis of randomized tri-
was aware of, but did not consider serious enough to warrant als and observational studies that determined that combination
further downgrading of the quality of evidence, were that antimicrobial therapy decreased mortality only among patients
most of the studies were conducted more than a decade ago with severe sepsis or septic shock and a high risk of death (31%
and the antimicrobial agent was often not the only independent vs 41%; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, .57–.89 among patients with sepsis
variable, as the duration of therapy also varied. due to pneumonia, who comprised 36% of the study popula-
More direct evidence (ie, studies that specifically evaluated tion), with potentially harmful consequences in low-risk pa-
patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa) was available tients [316].
from the 2 observational studies [312, 313]. The first was a mul- The guideline panel had very low confidence that the estimat-
ticenter observational study that included 183 episodes of VAP ed effects of monotherapy and combination therapy from these
caused by P. aeruginosa [312]. Inappropriate empiric therapy studies of sepsis and septic shock from any cause are accurate in
was associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio patients with sepsis or septic shock due to HAP/VAP caused by
[HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.07–3.10), and the initial use of combina- P. aeruginosa, because much of the evidence base is observa-
tion therapy reduced the likelihood of inappropriate therapy. tional and the results are both inconsistent and indirect (the
Once patients who received inappropriate empiric treatment question is about patients with septic shock due to P. aeruginosa
were excluded, however, mortality was similar among those pneumonia, but the evidence is from patients with septic shock
who received definitive treatment using monotherapy and com- from any cause). To be consistent with the approach described
bination therapy (23.1% vs 33.2%; adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, above, the panel did not further downgrade the quality of evi-
.50–1.63). The second was a single-center observational study dence due to the age of the studies [317] or the variability of the
that enrolled 100 consecutive patients with bacteremic P. aeru- duration of antibiotic therapy.
ginosa pneumonia [313]. It found that a decreased all-cause 28- Bacteremia: Approximately 20% of patients with P. aerugino-
day mortality was associated with the absence of septic shock at sa bacteremia develop septic shock according to an observation-
the time of bacteremia (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, .01–.49) and adequate al study of 709 episodes of P. aeruginosa bacteremia, and those
combination therapy (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, .01–.34). who develop septic shock are at increased risk for mortality
The observational studies suggest that combination therapy is (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 4.0–10.0) [318]. Given the strong relationship
beneficial for initial empiric therapy; however, once the antibiotic between shock and bacteremia, the panel also sought additional
susceptibilities are known, there are no differences in outcome evidence that patients with bacteremia may benefit from com-
among patients who receive definitive treatment using mono- bination therapy by looking at evidence from patients who had
therapy or combination therapy. Nonetheless, there is a possi- bacteremia from sources other than just HAP/VAP caused by
bility that a subset of patients with P. aeruginosa pneumonia P. aeruginosa.

An initial meta-analysis from 2004 comparing combination inconveniences, and possible side effects attributable to an ad-
antimicrobial therapy with monotherapy for Pseudomonas bac- ditional antibiotic. The potential upsides of the recommenda-
teremia demonstrated a mortality benefit from combination an- tion seemed more important to patients than the potential
timicrobial therapy (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, .32–.79) [319]. However, downsides.
more recent studies have not confirmed this finding. Three The panel chose to recommend against aminoglycoside
meta-analyses that included more recent studies compared the monotherapy as definitive therapy for 2 reasons. First, amino-
use of combination therapy to monotherapy for definitive ther- glycosides penetrate the lung poorly; therefore, high peak serum
apy in patients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia and found no dif- concentrations are necessary to obtain microbiologically active
ferences in all-cause mortality [320–322]. The largest individual concentrations in the alveoli, which increases the risk of neph-
study was a post hoc analysis of an observational study that rotoxicity and ototoxicity [266, 302, 303]. Studies have found no
compared monotherapy to combination therapy in 593 patients detectable antipseudomonal activity within bronchial secretions
with a single episode of P. aeruginosa bacteremia; it demonstrat- despite therapeutic aminoglycoside levels in the serum of pa-
ed that combination therapy was not associated with a reduc- tients with Pseudomonas pulmonary infection [304]. Second,
tion in the 30-day mortality risk compared with monotherapy there is a lack of studies evaluating the effects of aminoglycoside
(adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% CI, .73–2.47) [323]. A potential expla- monotherapy in HAP/VAP. Given this lack of empirical evi-
nation for the different findings in the initial meta-analysis and dence, the recommendation is based upon the committee’s col-
the subsequent studies is that many of the studies in the initial lective clinical experience.
meta-analysis included patients who received aminoglycoside

Research Needs
monotherapy.
The potential benefit of combination therapy in patients with
The guideline panel had very low confidence that the estimat-
ed effects of monotherapy and combination therapy from these septic shock is based upon studies in septic shock from any
cause. These findings need to be confirmed by randomized
studies apply to patients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia due to
trials in patients with septic shock due to P. aeruginosa
HAP/VAP. The reasons for the very low confidence are that a
large proportion of the evidence base is observational with incon- pneumonia. Outcomes for such trials should include mortality,
treatment failure, ICU and hospital length of stay, side effects,
sistent results, and because of indirectness of the population (the
and development of antibiotic resistance.
question is about patients who are severely ill with septic shock
and bacteremia due to P. aeruginosa pneumonia, but the evi- XVIII. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP
dence is from patients whose severity of illness was unspecified Due to ESBL–Producing Gram-Negative Bacilli?
and who have P. aeruginosa bacteremia from any source). Recommendation
1. For patients with HAP/VAP due to ESBL-producing gram-

negative bacilli, we recommend that the choice of an antibi-
The evidence synthesis found no differences in the effects of
otic for definitive (not empiric) therapy be based upon the
monotherapy and combination therapy as definitive treatment
results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing and patient-
(ie, treatment once the antibiotic susceptibility results are
specific factors (strong recommendation, very low-quality
known) on mortality, treatment failure, ICU and hospital length
evidence).
of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and acquisition of
Remarks: Patient-specific factors that should be considered
resistance, regardless of whether the results derived from obser-
when selecting an antimicrobial agent include allergies and
vational studies that enrolled patients with HAP/VAP caused by
comorbidities that may confer an increased risk of side effects.
P. aeruginosa or meta-analyses of randomized trials that en-
rolled patients with HAP/VAP due to any pathogen. The Summary of the Evidence
panel felt strongly that, in the absence of any demonstrable ben- Comparative antibiotic data for HAP/VAP caused by ESBL-
efit, the costs and potential side effects of an additional antibi- producing gram-negative organisms is extremely limited.
otic were not warranted. Therefore, the recommendation is There are no randomized trials or observational studies that
strong despite the low quality of evidence. specifically enrolled patients with HAP/VAP due to ESBL-
There was an important exception, however. The panel producing gram-negative organisms; furthermore, trials that
judged that combination therapy is warranted as definitive ther- enrolled patients with HAP/VAP due to any pathogen had an
apy for patients with HAP/VAP due to P. aeruginosa who have insufficient number of cases due to ESBL-producing gram-
septic shock or a high risk for death. The decision was based negative organisms to make subgroup analyses possible [291,
upon the evidence that combination therapy was associated 324–326].
with decreased mortality among patients with pneumonia com- The only evidence that exists is a few case series that describe
plicated by septic shock. The panel agreed that the potential for the failure of third-generation cephalosporins in treating ESBL-
decreased mortality outweighs the additional costs, producing pathogens [327, 328]. In the absence of any randomized
trials or observational studies, the guideline panel relied upon recommendation, low-quality evidence), and we suggest adjunc-
the case series and its collective clinical experience to formulate tive inhaled colistin (weak recommendation, low-quality
its judgments, which constitutes very low-quality evidence. evidence).
3. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species
that is sensitive only to colistin, we suggest NOT using ad-
Our evidence synthesis failed to identify an agent that is clearly
junctive rifampicin (weak recommendation, moderate-quali-
preferable to others in the treatment of HAP/VAP due to ESBL-
ty evidence).
producing gram-negative bacilli. Thus, the panel did not recom-
4. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species,
mend a preferred antibiotic regimen for patients with confirmed
we recommend against the use of tigecycline (strong recom-
HAP/VAP caused by ESBL-producing gram-negative bacilli.
mendation, low-quality evidence).
The panel was aware that carbapenems are sometimes consid-
Values and Preferences: These recommendations place a rel-
ered the agents of choice for treating such infections, in light of
atively higher value on avoiding potential adverse effects due
the case series describing failure of third-generation cephalo-
to the use of combination therapy with rifampicin and colis-
sporin therapy. One recent study favored carbapenems but
tin, over achieving an increased microbial eradication rate, as
also suggested that the use of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors
eradication rate was not associated with improved clinical
may be beneficial [329], and another suggested that either cefe-
outcome.
pime or piperacillin-tazobactam may be used against ESBL infec-
Remarks: Selection of an appropriate antibiotic for definitive
tions if the MICs are within susceptible ranges [330]. However,
(nonempiric) therapy requires antimicrobial susceptibility
the panel’s confidence in those data was so low that it did not

testing.
want to use the series as the basis of a recommendation either for
carbapenems or against cephalosporins or β-lactam/β-lactamase
inhibitors.
Our systematic review identified 6 randomized trials [155, 259,
The panel agreed that antimicrobial susceptibility testing
331–334] and 6 observational studies [256, 257, 261, 335–337]
provides the best information to inform antibiotic choices.
that evaluated the impact of specific antibiotics on clinical out-
However, the panel recognized that such testing often pro-
comes in critically ill patients with VAP/HAP due to Acineto-
vides clinicians with several choices and, therefore, agreed
bacter species. The studies found no differences in mortality,
that patient-specific factors such as allergies and comorbidi-
length of ICU stay, or clinical response when standard-dose am-
ties should also be considered. The recommendation is strong
picillin-sulbactam was compared with imipenem [335], intrave-
despite the very low quality of evidence because the panel
nous colistin [332], or high-dose ampicillin-sulbactam [333], or
agreed that the importance of identifying an effective therapy
when imipenem was compared to intravenous colistin [337]. In
far outweighs the costs, burdens, and time for antibiotic sus-
contrast, a trial found that tigecycline decreased clinical cure
ceptibility testing. Of note, the Clinical and Laboratory Stan-
rates compared with imipenem [155], and an observational
dards Institute no longer recommends specific ESBL testing;
study demonstrated that tigecycline-based therapy was associat-
thus, this recommendation also applies when the ESBL phe-
ed with higher mortality than was colistin-based therapy, al-
notype is suspected.
though the latter was associated with more nephrotoxicity
Research Needs [336]. The panel had low confidence that the estimated effects
There is an urgent need for studies comparing various antibiotic from these studies are an accurate reflection of the effects in pa-
regimens in the treatment of pneumonia due to ESBL-producing tients with HAP/VAP due to Acinetobacter species because the
gram-negative bacilli. Appropriate clinical outcomes include estimates were derived from observational studies, as well as
mortality, treatment failure rate, ICU and hospital length of randomized trials with both a risk of bias (ie, some studies
stay, acquired antibiotic resistance, and side effects. were not blinded) and indirectness of the population (ie, the
question is about patients with HAP/VAP due to Acinetobacter
XIX. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP species, but the studies enrolled patients with HAP/VAP due to
Due to Acinetobacter Species?
a variety of gram-negative bacilli). Evidence on polymyxin B for
Recommendations
the treatment of HAP/VAP is growing, but also limited by low-
1. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species, quality evidence [305–308, 338].
we suggest treatment with either a carbapenem or ampicillin/ Adjunctive therapies have also been studied. Two observa-
sulbactam if the isolate is susceptible to these agents (weak tional studies [257, 261] suggested that the combination of aero-
recommendation, low-quality evidence). solized colistin plus intravenous colistin was associated with a
2. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by Acinetobacter species higher clinical response than intravenous colistin alone, al-
that is sensitive only to polymyxins, we recommend in- though no significant difference in mortality was observed. In
travenous polymyxin (colistin or polymyxin B) (strong contrast, the addition of rifampicin to intravenous colistin did

not improve clinical outcomes such as mortality in 2 random- (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), and
ized trials (even though it improved microbiological eradica- we suggest adjunctive inhaled colistin (weak recommenda-
tion) [331, 334]. The addition of aerosolized colistin to an tion, low-quality evidence).
intravenous antibiotic other than colistin resulted in no change Values and Preferences: These recommendations place a
in mortality in a randomized trial [259]. The panel had low con- high value on achieving clinical cure and survival; they
fidence in most of these estimated effects for the same reasons place a lower value on burden and cost.
as described above; however, it had moderate confidence in the Remarks: Inhaled colistin may have potential pharmacoki-
estimated effects of the addition of rifampicin because the ef- netic advantages compared to inhaled polymyxin B, and
fects were derived from 2 randomized trials with a risk of bias. clinical evidence based on controlled studies has also
shown that inhaled colistin may be associated with improved
clinical outcomes. The clinical evidence for inhaled poly-
The evidence suggests that the carbapenems (including imipe-
myxin B is mostly from anecdotal and uncontrolled studies;
nem), ampicillin-sulbactam, and colistin are equally effective
we are therefore not suggesting use of inhaled polymyxin
at treating Acinetobacter species that are determined by antimi-
B. Colistin for inhalation should be administered promptly
crobial sensitivity testing to be sensitive to those agents. The
after being mixed with sterile water. This recommendation
guideline panel agreed that the carbapenems and ampicillin-
was made by the FDA after a report that a cystic fibrosis pa-
sulbactam are preferred due to fewer side effects, whereas
tient died after being treated with a premixed colistin formu-
colistin should be reserved for Acinetobacter species that are
lation [3]. Intravenous polymyxin B may have potential
sensitive only to colistin due to the risk of nephrotoxicity

pharmacokinetic advantages compared to intravenous colis-
from colistin therapy. The recommendation to use colistin to
tin, but clinical data are lacking in patients with HAP/VAP.
treat Acinetobacter species that are sensitive only to colistin
was strong despite the low quality of evidence because, for
such patients, there are no other therapeutic options, so colistin
Our systematic review identified 5 observational studies [256,
therapy may be lifesaving.
257, 261, 339, 340] and 4 randomized trials [259, 331, 332,
The use of adjunctive therapies was discussed at length by the
334] relevant to the clinical question. Acinetobacter baumannii
guideline panel. Adjunctive aerosolized colistin improved clin-
was the only organism or predominant organism in most stud-
ical outcomes without increasing harms; the panel agreed that
ies, and intravenous colistin monotherapy was the comparator
the additional benefits outweighed the additional burdens and
in most studies.
costs of such therapy and, therefore, opted to recommend ad-
Most of the studied antibiotics conferred similar effects when
junctive aerosolized colistin. In contrast, adjunctive rifampicin
given intravenously. A trial that randomly assigned patients to
did not improve outcomes and, therefore, was not recommend-
ampicillin-sulbactam or intravenous colistin found no differ-
ed because its burdens, costs, and risks clearly exceed the
ence in mortality or clinical response [332]. An observational
benefits.
study that similarly compared intravenous colistin and sulbac-
Finally, the evidence synthesis indicated that the current label
tam to intravenous colistin alone detected no difference in the
dose of tigecycline worsened clinical outcomes compared with
clinical response or microbiological response [340]. Two ran-
several other therapies. The panel’s strong recommendation
domized trials comparing rifampicin plus intravenous colistin
against tigecycline despite low-quality evidence is intended to
to intravenous colistin alone found no difference in mortality,
emphasize the importance of avoiding potentially harmful ther-
clinical response, or hospital length of stay [331, 334].
apies, particularly when alternative choices exist.
In contrast, the addition of inhaled colistin to intravenous co-
Research Needs listin appeared beneficial. Three observational studies [256, 257,
There is an urgent need for studies comparing various antibiotic 261] and one randomized trial [259] evaluated the effects of
regimens in the treatment of pneumonia due to Acinetobacter combination therapy with inhaled and intravenous colistin.
species. Appropriate clinical outcomes include mortality, treat- Our meta-analysis of these 4 studies showed an improved clin-
ment failure rate, ICU and hospital length of stay, acquired an- ical cure rate (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11–1.51) and trend toward
tibiotic resistance, and side effects. improved mortality (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, .52–1.09) when the com-
bination of adjunctive inhaled colistin plus intravenous colistin
XX. Which Antibiotic Should Be Used to Treat Patients With HAP/VAP was compared to intravenous colistin monotherapy. Of note,
Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Pathogens?
the meta-analysis was repeated after removing one of the studies
Recommendation
deemed to have a high risk of bias because carbapenem-resis-
1. In patients with HAP/VAP caused by a carbapenem-resistant infections were not equally distributed between the 2
tant pathogen that is sensitive only to polymyxins, we recom- study arms and nearly 50% of patients may have had carbape-
mend intravenous polymyxins (colistin or polymyxin B) nem-sensitive infections [257]. The repeat meta-analysis found
that combination therapy with inhaled and intravenous colistin beneficial or less harmful, as clinical experience is becoming
was still superior to intravenous colistin monotherapy in terms more
of clinical cure (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07–1.55). Inhaled colistin extensive.
was not associated with nephrotoxicity, bronchospasm, or neu- The panel agreed that the benefits of inhaled colistin plus in-
rotoxicity, although this outcome was not systematically evalu- travenous colistin or polymyxin B combination therapy out-
ated across studies. The risk for the development of resistant weighed the downsides in most patients with HAP/VAP
strains with inhaled colistin was addressed in one study, and caused by a carbapenem-resistant pathogen. The benefits con-
no such cases were identified [256]. sidered by the panel were an improved clinical cure rate and
Nephrotoxicity is the most common side effect of intrave- trend toward improved mortality, while the downsides included
nous colistin. In 3 studies, the frequency of colistin-associated potential harms (ie, nephrotoxicity, acquisition of colistin resis-
nephrotoxicity ranged from 19% to 33% [256, 261, 332]. This tance, and other less severe side effects), increased burdens, and
degree of renal dysfunction may be unavoidable when treating increased costs.
critically ill patients. In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed
no difference in the rate of nephrotoxicity in patients with VAP LENGTH OF THERAPY
who were treated with colistin compared with more traditional XXI. Should Patients With VAP Receive 7 Days or 8–15 Days of Antibiotic
agents [184]. The addition of inhaled colistin did not increase Therapy?
the risk of renal injury or the emergence of colistin-resistant Recommendation
infections. The development of Acinetobacter resistance to in-
1. For patients with VAP, we recommend a 7-day course of an-

haled colistin has only been described in spontaneously breath-
timicrobial therapy rather than a longer duration (strong rec-
ing patients, probably because drug concentrations in the
ommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
airway are significantly lower in these patients compared with
Remarks: There exist situations in which a shorter or longer
patients on mechanical ventilation [341]. Recommendations re-
garding the frequency of administration and the total daily dose
of intravenous colistin or polymyxin B and whether a loading
parameters.
dose should be administered are evolving and are beyond the
scope of these guidelines, but a suggestion is made in Table 3 Summary of the Evidence
(see section X). These issues should be addressed with the assis- We identified 2 published systematic reviews of randomized trials
tance of a critical care pharmacist. Similar concerns surround [342, 343] and an observational study [344] that compared short-
the use of inhaled colistin, as neither the dose nor method of course antibiotic therapy to prolonged-course therapy for VAP.
delivery is standardized. Evidence on polymyxin B for the treat- One systematic review [342] included 6 randomized trials
ment of HAP/VAP is growing, but also limited by low-quality [120, 158, 345–348] that enrolled 508 patients with HAP/VAP
evidence [305–308, 338]. and compared fixed durations of antibiotic therapy. Nearly all
The panel had moderate confidence in the finding of no dif- of the patients had VAP, rather than HAP. Short courses of an-
ference among most antibiotic regimens because the finding tibiotics (ie, 7–8 days) increased 28-day antibiotic-free days
derived from randomized trials with indirectness of the inter- (mean difference, 4.02 days; 95% CI, 2.26–5.78 days) and re-
vention (ie, colistin dosing was highly variable). In contrast, duced recurrent VAP due to MDR pathogens (42.1% vs
the panel had low confidence in the estimated effects of in- 62.3%; OR, 0.44; 95% CI, .21–.95) compared with long courses
haled plus intravenous colistin compared with intravenous co- of antibiotics (ie, 10–15 days). There were no differences in
listin alone because the effects derived from observational mortality, recurrent pneumonia, treatment failure, hospital
studies with indirectness of the intervention, as well as from length of stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation. In the sub-
randomized trials with a risk of bias (lack of blinding) and group of patients with VAP due to a non-glucose-fermenting
imprecision (wide CIs for the outcome of mortality). gram-negative bacillus including Pseudomonas and Acineto-
bacter (33% of patients), short courses of antibiotics were asso-
Rationale for the Recommendation ciated with recurrent infection (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.14–4.16),
Intravenous colistin or polymyxin B is standard therapy for but no other differences.
HAP/VAP caused by a carbapenem-resistant pathogen because The other systematic review [343] similarly included 4 ran-
such pathogens commonly demonstrate in vitro susceptibility domized trials [345, 346, 348] that enrolled 883 patients with
to only the polymyxin antibiotic class. Our systematic review VAP and compared short-course antibiotic regimens (ie, 7–8
found no alternative antibiotic regimen with effects superior days) to long-course regimens (ie, 10–15 days). Short-course
to intravenous colistin; the panel judged that intravenous poly- regimens increased antibiotic-free days, but there was no differ-
myxins should remain the preferred therapy until an alternative ence in mortality, recurrent pneumonia, ventilator-free days,
antimicrobial regimen is definitively shown to be more duration of mechanical ventilation, or length of ICU stay.

We conducted our own meta-analyses using the trials that patients who receive a short course of antibiotics. The panel
were included in the published systematic reviews, as well as agreed that a different recommendation was not indicated be-
data provided by these trials’ authors. We also found no differ- cause, even if there is a small increased recurrence rate, mortality
ences between short-course antibiotic regimens (ie, 7–8 days) and clinical cure do not appear to be affected; in addition, the ev-
and long-course regimens (ie, 10–15 days) in terms of mortality, idence for recurrence is from subgroup analyses with important
clinical cure, and recurrent pneumonia. Of note, the specific limitations. These include all of the following: There was potential
subpopulation with VAP due to non-glucose-fermenting bias in favor of long-course therapy due to the differential time
gram-negative bacilli was analyzed, and no differences were ob- period during which recurrence was assessed; there was the pos-
served for pneumonia recurrence (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, .66–3.04; sibility that the second episode of VAP is incorrectly being consid-
P = .37) or mortality (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, .56–1.59; P = .83). ered a recurrence because of persistent colonizing organisms
The observational study enrolled patients with VAP due to being cultured; many studies reported superinfections from
non-glucose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli, which included both lung and other organ sites (eg, urinary tract infection) as re-
27 patients who were treated with antibiotics for 3–8 days and currence; pulmonary infiltrates are known to persist on imaging
127 patients who were treated for ≥9 days. There were no dif- studies and lag behind clinical resolution, leading to false identi-
ferences in mortality or recurrence rate among patients who re- fication of a new or recurrent pneumonia; and many subgroup
ceived a short course of antibiotics compared to those who analyses were performed, raising the possibility of multiple hy-
received a long course [344]. pothesis testing.
Taken together, the evidence indicates that short courses of

antibiotics reduce antibiotic exposure and recurrent pneumonia XXII. What Is the Optimal Duration of Antibiotic Therapy for HAP
due to MDR organisms. Other clinical outcomes such as mor- (Non-VAP)?
tality do not appear to be affected by the duration of antibiotic Recommendation
therapy, with the exception of short courses, which were asso-
1. For patients with HAP, we recommend a 7-day course of
ciated with recurrence of the initial VAP due to a non-glucose-
antimicrobial therapy (strong recommendation, very low-
fermenting gram-negative bacillus in some previous studies, but
quality evidence).
not in our updated meta-analysis. The panel’s confidence in
Remarks: There exist situations in which a shorter or longer
these results was moderate, reflecting that they derive from
meta-analyses of randomized trials that have a risk for bias.
The risk of bias is due to many of the trials not being blinded
parameters.
and recurrence being measured at 30 days, which allows more
time for recurrence to occur in the short-course arms of the tri- Summary of the Evidence
als, potentially biasing the studies in favor of long-course anti- The guideline panel found no studies that provided useful data
biotics. There was also indirectness; the question is for all for comparing short-term to long-term antibiotic therapy in
patients with VAP, but the largest trial excluded patients with HAP; however, the duration of therapy has been studied in
early VAP. VAP. Short courses of antibiotics (ie, 7–8 days) increased
28-day antibiotic-free days (mean difference, 4.02 days; 95%
Rationale for the Recommendation CI, 2.26–5.78 days) and reduced recurrent VAP due to MDR
The desirable consequences of a short-course antibiotic regi- pathogens (42.1% vs 62.3%; OR, 0.44; 95% CI, .21–.95) com-
men are that it decreases antibiotic exposure and antibiotic re- pared with long courses of antibiotics (ie, 10–15 days). There
sistance, without increasing recurrent disease or mortality. The were no differences in mortality, recurrent pneumonia, treat-
decreased antibiotic exposure almost certainly reduces costs and ment failure, hospital length of stay, or duration of mechanical
side effects. The undesirable consequence of a short-course an- ventilation. In the subgroup of patients with VAP due to a non-
tibiotic regimen is that occasionally antibiotics will be discon- glucose-fermenting gram-negative bacillus, including Pseudo-
tinued in a patient who needs them, resulting in recurrent monas and Acinetobacter (33% of patients), short courses of
VAP. The evidence suggests that this is very uncommon and, antibiotics were associated with recurrence (41.8% vs 24.7%;
therefore, the panel had a high level of confidence that the ben- OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.14–4.16), but no mortality or other clinical
efits of a short-course antibiotic regimen outweighed the harms, differences were found [342, 345–347]. The increased risk of re-
leading to their recommendation to use antibiotics for 7 days currence might have been in part due to bias created by how the
rather than 8–15 days in patients with VAP. time to recurrence was defined. A more recent and larger body
The panel considered whether a separate recommendation of evidence comparing short-course vs long-course antibiotic
was indicated for patients with VAP due to non-glucose- treatment found no differences in mortality, recurrent pneumo-
fermenting gram-negative bacilli, in light of the previous evi- nia, treatment failure, hospital length of stay, or duration of me-
dence suggesting that recurrence may be increased in such chanical ventilation (see section XXI).
Rationale for the Recommendation trial found that de-escalation caused a non–statistically signifi-
Due to the absence of studies comparing short-term to long- cant decrease in the length of stay [229], whereas one of the ob-
term antibiotic therapy in patients with HAP, the guideline servational studies found that de-escalation was associated with
panel used evidence from patients with VAP to inform its judg- a non–statistically significant increase in the length of stay
ments. The evidence suggests that antibiotic therapy for ≤7 days [349]. Recurrence of pneumonia was the same in both the de-es-
does not reduce the benefits of antibiotic therapy; however, the calation and fixed-regimen groups in 2 observational studies [194,
shorter duration of therapy almost certainly reduces antibiotic- 350]. One of the studies reported an increase in emergence of re-
related side effects, C. difficile colitis, the acquisition of anti- sistant pathogens, particularly MRSA, in the de-escalation group
biotic resistance, and costs. Given these potential benefits of a (37.9% vs 16.7%; P < .05) [229].
shorter duration of therapy without known harms, the panel de- Following our systematic review, a randomized trial was re-
cided that empiric antibiotic therapy should be prescribed for ported that specifically compared a de-escalation strategy of
≤7 days. The recommendation is strong, reflecting the panel’s antimicrobial management to a fixed strategy. It defined de-
belief in the importance of avoiding therapies that are potential- escalation as narrowing the spectrum of initial antimicrobial
ly harmful and costly if there is no evidence of benefit. therapy and a fixed strategy as the continuation of appropriate
The guideline panel agreed that it is reasonable to empirically antimicrobial therapy until therapy was complete. The trial ran-
de-escalate the antimicrobial regimen to a single broad-spectrum domly assigned 116 patients with sepsis in the ICU to receive
antibiotic in patients who have a negative sputum culture and are either a de-escalation strategy or fixed strategy. Pneumonia
clinically improving, provided that there is ongoing coverage ac- was a more common cause of sepsis in the de-escalation

cording to a local HAP antibiogram, or, if not available, for enteric group (58% vs 40%). De-escalation increased the number of an-
gram-negative bacilli and MSSA. Patients who have not had spu- timicrobial days (9 days vs 7.5 days; P = .03) and the risk of
tum cultures performed, have factors that diminish the reliability superinfection (27% vs 11%; RR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.09–6.12).
of the sputum culture (eg, antibiotic therapy prior to obtaining the There was no difference in mortality or ICU length of stay
sample or a poor-quality sample), or are at high risk for MDR in- [352]. In a subgroup analysis of the 56 patients with pneumo-
fections may not be appropriate candidates for de-escalation. nia, there were no differences in any of the outcomes measured.
Taken together, the evidence indicates the following: There
XXIII. Should Antibiotic Therapy Be De-escalated or Fixed in Patients are no differences between de-escalation and a fixed antimicro-
With HAP/VAP? bial regimen in terms of mortality or ICU length of stay; there is
Recommendation conflicting evidence about the effect of de-escalation on the in-
cidence of recurrent pneumonia; and de-escalation may in-
1. For patients with HAP/VAP, we suggest that antibiotic ther-
crease antimicrobial days, superinfection, and the emergence
apy be de-escalated rather than fixed (weak recommendation,
of MRSA. The panel’s confidence in these estimated effects is
very low. The panel’s systematic review consisted mostly of ob-
Remarks: De-escalation refers to changing an empiric broad-
servational studies that were limited by risk of bias, indirectness
spectrum antibiotic regimen to a narrower antibiotic regimen
(different definitions of de-escalation, different antimicrobial
by changing the antimicrobial agent or changing from com-
regimens and protocols), and inconsistent results. The subse-
bination therapy to monotherapy. In contrast, fixed antibiot-
quent randomized trial was limited by both serious risk of
ic therapy refers to maintaining a broad-spectrum antibiotic
bias (not blinded, failure of randomization [ie, baseline differ-
regimen until therapy is completed.
ences]) and probably also indirectness (the question is about
Summary of the Evidence patients with HAP/VAP, but the trial may have included pa-
We identified 6 relevant studies that enrolled patients with nos- tients with healthcare-associated non-HAP/VAP pneumonia).
ocomial pneumonia [194, 196, 229, 349–351]. One of the studies
was a randomized trial [229], and the remaining 5 were ob- Rationale for the Recommendation
servational studies [196, 349–351]. One study found lower De-escalation is widely considered the preferable approach to
mortality with de-escalation therapy [196], 3 studies found a antimicrobial management and has become a principle of anti-
non–statistically significant reduction in mortality with de- microbial stewardship. National guidelines and numerous pa-
escalation therapy [349–351], and 2 studies found an increase pers contend that de-escalation is beneficial because it likely
in mortality with de-escalation therapy [194, 229]. When the reduces antimicrobial resistance, side effects, and costs [1, 195,
studies were pooled, there was no difference in mortality for 353–358]. However, there is very little evidence that substanti-
the de-escalation group vs the fixed-regimen group (19.7% vs ates these presumed benefits, and there is some evidence (albeit
22.6%; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, .64–1.1). very poor-quality evidence) that de-escalation may have some
Other outcomes were similarly inconsistent or unaffected by undesirable effects. These undesirable effects may, in part, be
the antimicrobial strategy. For ICU length of stay, the randomized the result of changing an appropriate antimicrobial regimen

to an inappropriate regimen due to misinterpretation of micro- both the initiation and discontinuation of antibiotics. The evi-
biological tests, misleading microbiological tests (eg, poor- dence is predominantly from patients with VAP, so our recom-
quality specimens reflecting contamination), or erroneous mendations for HAP are mostly based on VAP studies.
decision making. In addition, we identified 2 published randomized trials [361,
The panelists felt that the evidence was poor and that they 362] and an abstract of a randomized trial [363], all of which
had essentially no confidence in the estimated effects of a de-es- specifically evaluated the discontinuation of antibiotic therapy
calation strategy compared with a fixed regimen. Therefore, the for VAP on the basis of PCT levels plus clinical criteria vs clin-
panel elected to inform its recommendation with unsystematic ical criteria alone. When pooled, the trials included 308 patients
observations (ie, clinical experience) and clinical rationale. They with VAP and found that those patients whose antibiotics were
had a high level of confidence that de-escalation reduces costs, either continued or discontinued on the basis of PCT levels plus
burdens, and side effects, and that it is very likely that de- clinical criteria had a shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (9.1
escalation also reduces antimicrobial resistance. In contrast, days vs 12.1 days; P < .00001), but no difference in mortality.
they thought it may be possible that recurrent pneumonia Other outcomes were reported by only some of the trials, but
could be increased by de-escalation, but had serious doubts included no effects on the duration of mechanical ventilation,
that de-escalation could increase superinfection or antimicrobi- length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, incidence of recur-
al days. When these factors were considered together, the panel rent pneumonia, or development of resistance.
judged that the potential benefits of de-escalation outweigh the Taken together, the evidence suggests that discontinuing an-
possible harms and, therefore, recommended de-escalation. tibiotics on the basis of PCT levels plus clinical criteria decreas-

es antibiotic exposure compared with using clinical criteria
Research Needs alone; all other outcomes remain unchanged. The panel had
Well-done randomized trials comparing the effects of de- low confidence in these results because they derive from a
escalation and fixed antimicrobial regimens on clinical meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials with both a serious risk
outcomes are urgently needed. With antibiotic resistance con- of bias (the trials were not blinded) and indirectness, as well
sidered one of the most significant threats of the current era as from a meta-analysis of 3 randomized trials with a serious
and de-escalation a potential way to combat resistance, such risk of bias (the trials were not blinded) and some inconsistency
research demands a high priority. (I 2 = 21%). Moreover, the control groups in the trials had rou-
tinely received 9–15 days of antibiotics; it is uncertain if a ben-
XXIV. Should Discontinuation of Antibiotic Therapy Be Based Upon PCT
Levels Plus Clinical Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone in Patients With efit would also be seen in hospitals that have a lower baseline
HAP/VAP? duration of antibiotic therapy [342, 345].
Recommendation
1. For patients with HAP/VAP, we suggest using PCT levels The desirable consequence associated with the use of PCT levels
plus clinical criteria to guide the discontinuation of antibiotic to guide the discontinuation of empiric antibiotic therapy is that
therapy, rather than clinical criteria alone (weak recommen- it decreases antibiotic exposure without increasing treatment
dation, low-quality evidence). failure or mortality. The decreased antibiotic exposure almost
Remarks: It is not known if the benefits of using PCT levels certainly reduces costs and side effects. The undesirable conse-
to determine whether or not to discontinue antibiotic thera- quences of using PCT levels to guide the discontinuation of em-
py exist in settings where standard antimicrobial therapy for piric antibiotic therapy are that PCT testing is more costly and
VAP is already 7 days or less. burdensome than clinical criteria alone. Moreover, falsely low
PCT levels may encourage inappropriate discontinuation of
necessary antibiotic therapy and falsely high PCT levels may
We identified a published systematic review that selected ran-
lead to the continuation of unnecessary antibiotic therapy.
domized trials that enrolled patients with acute respiratory in-
When all these factors were considered, the panel felt that the
fections and compared PCT-based antibiotic decision making
benefits of decreased antibiotic exposure outweighed the costs,
with conventional (ie, no PCT) decision making. The review se-
burdens, and uncertain results associated with PCT testing.
lected 14 trials with 4221 patients and found that PCT-based
decision making decreased antibiotic exposure (adjusted mean XXV. Should Discontinuation of Antibiotic Therapy Be Based Upon the
difference, −3.47 days; 95% CI, −3.78 to −3.17 days) and was CPIS Plus Clinical Criteria or Clinical Criteria Alone in Patients With
Suspected HAP/VAP?
not associated with increased mortality or treatment failure
Recommendation
[359, 360]. The generalizability of these findings is limited by
indirectness, as the question is about the discontinuation of an- 1. For patients with suspected HAP/VAP, we suggest not using
tibiotics in patients with VAP, but the trials included patients the CPIS to guide the discontinuation of antibiotic therapy
with any type of acute respiratory infection and evaluated (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).
Summary of the Evidence trials, the evidence was limited by inconsistency and indirectness
Use of the CPIS as a diagnostic tool was discussed above. The (the question is about the use of CPIS in patients with VAP, but
CPIS has also been studied as a management tool to aid in the one trial enrolled patients with a low likelihood of VAP and the
decision of whether or not to discontinue antibiotics. Our sys- other studies used criteria slightly different from the CPIS).
tematic review identified 3 such studies [120, 193, 364]. The ev-
idence is predominantly from patients with VAP, so our Rationale for the Recommendation
recommendations for HAP are mostly based on VAP studies. This recommendation illustrates the panel’s belief that an un-
In the first study, 81 ICU patients with pulmonary infiltrates proven intervention should not be recommended. Implementa-
and a CPIS ≤6 (low risk of pneumonia) were randomly assigned tion of the CPIS is not costly and is minimally burdensome;
to standard therapy (choice and duration of antibiotic therapy however, it may be harmful if it does not reliably discriminate
at the discretion of the clinician) or ciprofloxacin monotherapy patients who can safely have their antibiotics discontinued from
with reevaluation at 3 days. If the CPIS remained ≤6 at 3 days, patients who should have their antibiotics continued, since it
ciprofloxacin was discontinued; otherwise, it was continued. Pa- may lead to the discontinuation of antibiotics in patients who
tients in the standard therapy group were more likely to receive need ongoing antimicrobial therapy.
≥3 days of antibiotic therapy than patients in the CPIS group
Notes
(90% vs 28%; P = .0001). There was no difference in mortality
Acknowledgments. The panel expresses its gratitude to the thoughtful
or ICU length of stay; however, patients in the CPIS group reviewers of earlier drafts of the guideline. The panel also wishes to thank
had a shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (3.0 days vs 9.8 Barb Griss from National Jewish Health for her assistance with the literature

days; P = .0001), a less expensive treatment course ($259 vs searches, Lina Huang, PharmD, of Washington Hospital Health Care
System, Jennifer J. Padberg, MPH of Infectious Diseases Society of America
$640; P = .0001), and less antibiotic resistance and fewer super- (IDSA) and Kevin Wilson, MD of American Thoracic Society (ATS) for
infections (14% vs 38%; RR, 0.36; 95% CI, .14–.89) [120]. their assistance and support in the development of these guidelines.
In the second study, 290 patients with VAP were assigned to Disclaimer. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and
does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Heart, Lung,
have the duration of empiric antibiotic therapy for VAP deter-
and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of
mined using an antibiotic discontinuation policy (discontinuation Veterans Affairs.
group) or according to the clinical judgment of the treating ICU Financial support. The IDSA and the ATS provided meeting facilities
physicians (conventional group). The discontinuation policy re- for face-to-face meetings, financial support for conference calls, and admin-
istrative support. Industry funding to support guideline development was
quired discontinuation of antibiotics if a noninfectious etiology not permitted.
for the infiltrates was identified or the symptoms and signs of in- Potential conflicts of interest. T. M. F. reports grants from the US Food
fection resolved; the symptoms and signs overlapped with the and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study; Served in an Ad-
visory/Consultancy role to Allergan, Melinta, Merck, MotifBio, Nabriva,
CPIS, but were slightly different. The duration of antibiotic ther- Tetraphase, Sensor Kenesis Group, and grants from Pfizer and Cempra, out-
apy was reduced in the discontinuation group compared with the side the submitted work. P. D. F. reports grants from Biofire Diagnostics and
conventional therapy group (6 days vs 8 days; P = .001), but there Merck, outside the submitted work. M. L. M. reports that he has participated
as an investigator in clinical trials related to bronchiectasis sponsored by
were no differences in mortality, ICU length of stay, development
Aradigm and Gilead; his employer has received remuneration for this
of resistance, or incidence of superinfections [193, 364]. work; and prior to beginning work on this guideline, he served as a consul-
The third study was an observational study of 102 patients tant and speaker for Pfizer. Subsequent to the writing of these Guidelines,
with VAP that compared outcomes among patients managed Dr Metersky served as a consultant and clinical trial investigator for Bayer,
both related to bronchiectasis. J. C. reports personal fees from Astellas,
prior to the implementation of an antimicrobial guideline with Merck, Roche, Angellini, Pfizer, and Novartis, outside the submitted
outcomes among patients managed after implementation of the work. J. M. reports grants from Bayer Pharma, outside the submitted
guideline. The guideline set standard antibiotic therapy to 7 days work. L. B. P. reports a patent for targeted therapy of endobronchial infec-
tion in mechanically ventilated patents with royalties paid to Nektar Ther-
and encouraged a longer duration of therapy only for patients apeutics sublicensed to Bayer, and the State University of New York at Stony
with evidence of ongoing active infection; this evidence closely Brook has licensed patents to Nektar in the area of aerosolized antibiotics to
overlapped with the CPIS (ie, fever, leukocytosis, persistent infil- the intubated patient. These patents are sublicensed to Bayer. L. B. P. is a
consultant to Bayer. M. I. R.’s time is partially protected by award number
trates, ongoing purulent sputum). Following implementation of
K23HL096054 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
the guideline, the duration of antibiotic therapy was shorter J. A. R. reports serving on the Advisory Board of Infectopharm, and receiv-
(8.6 days vs 14.8 days; P < .001), and recurrent VAP was less com- ing lecture fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. All other authors
mon (7.7% vs 24%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, .11–.93) [193, 364]. report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form
for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors
Taken together, the evidence is inconsistent. One study suggests consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
that use of the CPIS to determine antibiotic duration decreases
cost, antibiotic resistance, and superinfection [120], but 2 other References
studies suggest that use of the CPIS has no effect on most clinical 1. American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America
(IDSA). Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, venti-
outcomes [193, 364]. The panel had low confidence in these esti- lator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care
mated effects because, although 2 of the studies were randomized Med 2005; 171:388–416.

2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rat- 27. Martin-Loeches I, Deja M, Koulenti D, et al. Potentially resistant microorganisms
ing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924–6. in intubated patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia: the interaction of ecol-
3. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Information for healthcare profes- ogy, shock and risk factors. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39:672–81.
sionals: colistimethate (marketed as Coly-Mycin M and generic products). Avail- 28. Restrepo MI, Peterson J, Fernandez JF, Qin Z, Fisher AC, Nicholson SC. Comparison
able at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformation of the bacterial etiology of early-onset and late-onset ventilator-associated pneumo-
forPatientsandProviders/ucm124896.htm. Accessed September 2014.. nia in subjects enrolled in 2 large clinical studies. Respir Care 2013; 58:1220–5.
4. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Fridkin SK; Emerging Infections Program Healthcare-As- 29. Verhamme KM, De Coster W, De Roo L, et al. Pathogens in early-onset and late-
sociated Infections Antimicrobial Use Prevalence Survey Team. Survey of health onset intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2542–3. 2007; 28:389–97.
5. Dudeck MA, Weiner LM, Allen-Bridson K, et al. National Healthcare Safety Net- 30. Parker CM, Kutsogiannis J, Muscedere J, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia
work (NHSN) report, data summary for 2012, device-associated module. Am J caused by multidrug-resistant organisms or Pseudomonas aeruginosa: preva-
Infect Control 2013; 41:1148–66. lence, incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. J Crit Care 2008; 23:18–26.
6. Dudeck MA, Horan TC, Peterson KD, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network 31. George DL, Falk PS, Wunderink RG, et al. Epidemiology of ventilator-acquired
(NHSN) report, data summary for 2009, device-associated module. Am J Infect pneumonia based on protected bronchoscopic sampling. Am J Respir Crit Care
Control 2011; 39:349–67. Med 1998; 158:1839–47.
7. Wang Y, Eldridge N, Metersky ML, et al. National trends in patient safety for four 32. Rello J, Sa-Borges M, Correa H, Leal SR, Baraibar J. Variations in etiology of
common conditions, 2005–2011. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:341–51. ventilator-associated pneumonia across four treatment sites: implications for
8. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Groenwold RH, et al. Attributable mortality of venti- antimicrobial prescribing practices. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;
lator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 160:608–13.
randomised prevention studies. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13:665–71. 33. Leroy O, Meybeck A, d’Escrivan T, Devos P, Kipnis E, Georges H. Impact of ad-
9. Muscedere JG, Day A, Heyland DK. Mortality, attributable mortality, and clinical equacy of initial antimicrobial therapy on the prognosis of patients with ventila-
events as end points for clinical trials of ventilator-associated pneumonia and tor-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29:2170–3.
hospital-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51(suppl 1):S120–5. 34. Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from
10. Kollef MH, Hamilton CW, Ernst FR. Economic impact of ventilator-associated cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol 2013; 13:862–74.
pneumonia in a large matched cohort. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012; 35. Markowicz P, Wolff M, Djedaini K, et al. Multicenter prospective study of ven-
33:250–6. tilator-associated pneumonia during acute respiratory distress syndrome. Inci-

11. Sopena N, Sabria M; Neunos Study Group. Multicenter study of hospital-ac- dence, prognosis, and risk factors. ARDS Study Group. Am J Respir Crit Care
quired pneumonia in non-ICU patients. Chest 2005; 127:213–9. Med 2000; 161:1942–8.
12. Esperatti M, Ferrer M, Giunta V, et al. Validation of predictors of adverse outcomes 36. Chastre J, Trouillet JL, Vuagnat A, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in patients
in hospital-acquired pneumonia in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2151–61. with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;
13. Coffin SE, Klompas M, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent ventilator-associated 157(4 pt 1):1165–72.
pneumonia in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 37. Langer M, Cigada M, Mandelli M, Mosconi P, Tognoni G. Early onset pneumonia:
(suppl 1):S31–40. a multicenter study in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 1987; 13:342–6.
14. Klompas M, Branson R, Eichenwald EC, et al. Strategies to prevent ventilator-as- 38. Ewig S, Torres A, El-Ebiary M, et al. Bacterial colonization patterns in mechan-
sociated pneumonia in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp ically ventilated patients with traumatic and medical head injury. Incidence, risk
Epidemiol 2014; 35(suppl 2):S133–54. factors, and association with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit
15. Chalmers JD, Rother C, Salih W, Ewig S. Healthcare-associated pneumonia does Care Med 1999; 159:188–98.
39. Leroy O, Giradie P, Yazdanpanah Y, et al. Hospital-acquired pneumonia: micro-
not accurately identify potentially resistant pathogens: a systematic review and
biological data and potential adequacy of antimicrobial regimens. Eur Respir J
meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58:330–9.
2002; 20:432–9.
16. Gross AE, Van Schooneveld TC, Olsen KM, et al. Epidemiology and predictors of
40. Leroy O, d’Escrivan T, Devos P, Dubreuil L, Kipnis E, Georges H. Hospital-
multidrug-resistant community-acquired and health care-associated pneumonia.
acquired pneumonia in critically ill patients: factors associated with episodes
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:5262–8.
due to imipenem-resistant organisms. Infection 2005; 33:129–35.
17. Yap V, Datta D, Metersky ML. Is the present definition of health care-associated
41. Bouza E, Giannella M, Bunsow E, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia due to
pneumonia the best way to define risk of infection with antibiotic-resistant path-
meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: risk factors and outcome in a large ge-
ogens? Infect Dis Clin North Am 2013; 27:1–18.
neral hospital. J Hosp Infect 2012; 80:150–5.
18. Jones BE, Jones MM, Huttner B, et al. Trends in antibiotic use and nosocomial
42. Moreira MR, Cardoso RL, Almeida AB, Gontijo Filho PP. Risk factors and evo-
pathogens in hospitalized veterans with pneumonia at 128 medical centers,
lution of ventilator-associated pneumonia by Staphylococcus aureus sensitive or
2006–2010. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61:1403–10.
resistant to oxacillin in patients at the intensive care unit of a Brazilian university
19. Valles J, Martin-Loeches I, Torres A, et al. Epidemiology, antibiotic therapy and
hospital. Braz J Infect Dis 2008; 12:499–503.
clinical outcomes of healthcare-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a
43. Wooten DA, Winston LG. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
Spanish cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40:572–81.
aureus in patients with community-onset and hospital-onset pneumonia. Respir
20. Hayashi Y, Morisawa K, Klompas M, et al. Toward improved surveillance: the
Med 2013; 107:1266–70.
impact of ventilator-associated complications on length of stay and antibiotic 44. Robicsek A, Suseno M, Beaumont JL, Thomson RB Jr, Peterson LR. Prediction of
use in patients in intensive care units. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:471–7. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus involvement in disease sites by con-
21. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society comitant nasal sampling. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46:588–92.
(ATS). Supplemental material for the management of adults with hospital- 45. Dangerfield B, Chung A, Webb B, Seville MT. Predictive value of methicillin-
acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal swab PCR assay for MRSA pneu-
by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Soci- monia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:859–64.
ety. Available at: http://www.idsociety.org/Organ_System/#HospitalAcquired 46. Sarikonda KV, Micek ST, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, Warren D, Kollef MH.
VentilatorAssociatedPneumoniaHAPVAP. Accessed 9 June 2016. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization is a poor predictor
22. Depuydt P, Benoit D, Vogelaers D, et al. Systematic surveillance cultures as a tool of intensive care unit-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infec-
to predict involvement of multidrug antibiotic resistant bacteria in ventilator-as- tions requiring antibiotic treatment. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1991–5.
sociated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:675–82. 47. Montero M, Sala M, Riu M, et al. Risk factors for multidrug-resistant Pseudomo-
23. Giantsou E, Liratzopoulos N, Efraimidou E, et al. Both early-onset and late-onset nas aeruginosa acquisition. Impact of antibiotic use in a double case-control
ventilator-associated pneumonia are caused mainly by potentially multiresistant study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2010; 29:335–9.
bacteria. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:1488–94. 48. Agbaht K, Diaz E, Munoz E, et al. Bacteremia in patients with ventilator-associated
24. Trouillet JL, Chastre J, Vuagnat A, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by pneumonia is associated with increased mortality: a study comparing bacteremic vs.
potentially drug-resistant bacteria. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 157:531–9. nonbacteremic ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:2064–70.
25. Gastmeier P, Sohr D, Geffers C, Ruden H, Vonberg RP, Welte T. Early- and late- 49. Kunac A, Sifri ZC, Mohr AM, Horng H, Lavery RF, Livingston DH. Bacteremia
onset pneumonia: is this still a useful classification? Antimicrob Agents Chemo- and ventilator-associated pneumonia: a marker for contemporaneous extra-pul-
ther 2009; 53:2714–8. monic infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2014; 15:77–83.
26. Ibrahim EH, Ward S, Sherman G, Kollef MH. A comparative analysis of patients 50. Luna CM, Videla A, Mattera J, et al. Blood cultures have limited value in predict-
with early-onset vs late-onset nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU setting. Chest ing severity of illness and as a diagnostic tool in ventilator-associated pneumonia.
2000; 117:1434–42. Chest 1999; 116:1075–84.
51. O’Keefe GE, Caldwell E, Cuschieri J, Wurfel MM, Evans HL. Ventilator-associ- 76. Chastre J, Luyt CE, Combes A, Trouillet JL. Use of quantitative cultures and re-
ated pneumonia: bacteremia and death after traumatic injury. J Trauma Acute duced duration of antibiotic regimens for patients with ventilator-associated
Care Surg 2012; 72:713–9. pneumonia to decrease resistance in the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis
52. DeRyke CA, Lodise TP Jr, Rybak MJ, McKinnon PS. Epidemiology, treatment, 2006; 43(suppl 2):S75–81.
and outcomes of nosocomial bacteremic Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. 77. Combes A, Luyt CE, Trouillet JL, Chastre J. Controversies in ventilator-associated
Chest 2005; 128:1414–22. pneumonia. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 31:47–54.
53. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A randomized trial of diagnostic techniques 78. Croce MA, Fabian TC, Waddle-Smith L, et al. Utility of Gram’s stain and efficacy
for ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2619–30. of quantitative cultures for posttraumatic pneumonia: a prospective study. Ann
54. Fagon JY, Chastre J, Wolff M, et al. Invasive and noninvasive strategies for man- Surg 1998; 227:743–51; discussion 51–5.
agement of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. A randomized trial. Ann 79. Dreyfuss D, Mier L, Le Bourdelles G, et al. Clinical significance of borderline
Intern Med 2000; 132:621–30. quantitative protected brush specimen culture results. Am Rev Respir Dis
55. Ruiz M, Torres A, Ewig S, et al. Noninvasive versus invasive microbial investiga- 1993; 147:946–51.
tion in ventilator-associated pneumonia: evaluation of outcome. Am J Respir Crit 80. Fujitani S, Yu VL. Quantitative cultures for diagnosing ventilator-associated
Care Med 2000; 162:119–25. pneumonia: a critique. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43(suppl 2):S106–13.
56. Sanchez-Nieto JM, Torres A, Garcia-Cordoba F, et al. Impact of invasive and 81. Giantsou E, Liratzopoulos N, Efraimidou E, et al. De-escalation therapy rates are
noninvasive quantitative culture sampling on outcome of ventilator-associated significantly higher by bronchoalveolar lavage than by tracheal aspirate. Intensive
pneumonia: a pilot study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 157:371–6. Care Med 2007; 33:1533–40.
57. Sole Violan J, Fernandez JA, Benitez AB, Cardenosa Cendrero JA, Rodriguez de 82. Grgurich PE, Hudcova J, Lei Y, Sarwar A, Craven DE. Diagnosis of ventilator-as-
Castro F. Impact of quantitative invasive diagnostic techniques in the manage- sociated pneumonia: controversies and working toward a gold standard. Curr
ment and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with suspected pneumo- Opin Infect Dis 2013; 26:140–50.
nia. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:2737–41. 83. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Marshall J, et al. The clinical utility of invasive diagnostic
58. Berton DC, Kalil AC, Teixeira PJ. Quantitative versus qualitative cultures of re- techniques in the setting of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Canadian Critical
spiratory secretions for clinical outcomes in patients with ventilator-associated Care Trials Group. Chest 1999; 115:1076–84.
pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 10:Cd006482. 84. Kollef MH, Kollef KE. Antibiotic utilization and outcomes for patients with clin-
59. Papazian L, Thomas P, Garbe L, et al. Bronchoscopic or blind sampling tech- ically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia and negative quantitative BAL
niques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit culture results. Chest 2005; 128:2706–13.

Care Med 1995; 152(6 pt 1):1982–91. 85. Malhotra AK, Riaz OJ, Duane TM, et al. Subthreshold quantitative bronchoal-
60. Marquette CH, Copin MC, Wallet F, et al. Diagnostic tests for pneumonia in ven- veolar lavage: clinical and therapeutic implications. J Trauma 2008; 65:580–8.
tilated patients: prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy using histology as a 86. Rello J, Vidaur L, Sandiumenge A, et al. De-escalation therapy in ventilator-as-
diagnostic gold standard. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151:1878–88. sociated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:2183–90.
61. Torres A, el-Ebiary M, Padro L, et al. Validation of different techniques for the 87. Rodriguez de Castro F, Sole-Violan J, Aranda Leon A, et al. Do quantitative cul-
diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Comparison with immediate post- tures of protected brush specimens modify the initial empirical therapy in ven-
mortem pulmonary biopsy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149(2 pt 1):324–31. tilated patients with suspected pneumonia? Eur Respir J 1996; 9:37–41.
62. Balthazar AB, Von Nowakonski A, De Capitani EM, Bottini PV, Terzi RG, Arau- 88. Sterling TR, Ho EJ, Brehm WT, Kirkpatrick MB. Diagnosis and treatment of ven-
jo S. Diagnostic investigation of ventilator-associated pneumonia using bron- tilator-associated pneumonia—impact on survival. A decision analysis. Chest
choalveolar lavage: comparative study with a postmortem lung biopsy. Braz J 1996; 110:1025–34.
Med Biol Res 2001; 34:993–1001. 89. Herer B, Fuhrman C, Gazevic Z, Cabrit R, Chouaid C. Management of nosoco-
63. Sole-Violan J, Rodriguez de Castro F, Rey A, et al. Comparison of bronchoscopic mial pneumonia on a medical ward: a comparative study of outcomes and costs
diagnostic techniques with histological findings in brain dead organ donors with- of invasive procedures. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15:165–72.
out suspected pneumonia. Thorax 1996; 51:929–31. 90. Dorca J, Manresa F, Esteban L, et al. Efficacy, safety, and therapeutic relevance of
64. Fabregas N, Ewig S, Torres A, et al. Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated transthoracic aspiration with ultrathin needle in nonventilated nosocomial pneu-
pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post-mortem monia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151:1491–6.
lung biopsies. Thorax 1999; 54:867–73. 91. Dalhoff K, Braun J, Hollandt H, Lipp R, Wiessmann KJ, Marre R. Diagnostic
65. Kirtland SH, Corley DE, Winterbauer RH, et al. The diagnosis of ventilator- value of bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with opportunistic and nonopportun-
associated pneumonia: a comparison of histologic, microbiologic, and clinical istic bacterial pneumonia. Infection 1993; 21:291–6.
criteria. Chest 1997; 112:445–57. 92. Chung DR, Song JH, Kim SH, et al. High prevalence of multidrug-resistant non-
66. Bregeon F, Papazian L, Thomas P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of protected catheter fermenters in hospital-acquired pneumonia in Asia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
sampling in ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2000; 16:969–75. 2011; 184:1409–17.
67. Chastre J, Viau F, Brun P, et al. Prospective evaluation of the protected specimen 93. Pereira W Jr, Kovnat DM, Snider GL. A prospective cooperative study of compli-
brush for the diagnosis of pulmonary infections in ventilated patients. Am Rev cations following flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Chest 1978; 73:813–6.
Respir Dis 1984; 130:924–9. 94. Gibson PG, Breit SN, Bryant DH. Hypoxia during bronchoalveolar lavage. Aust
68. Raman K, Nailor MD, Nicolau DP, Aslanzadeh J, Nadeau M, Kuti JL. Early an- N Z J Med 1990; 20:39–43.
tibiotic discontinuation in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated 95. Maruna P, Nedelnikova K, Gurlich R. Physiology and genetics of procalcitonin.
pneumonia and negative quantitative bronchoscopy cultures. Crit Care Med Physiol Res 2000; 49(suppl 1):S57–61.
2013; 41:1656–63. 96. Dandona P, Nix D, Wilson MF, et al. Procalcitonin increase after endotoxin in-
69. Jorgensen JH, Pfaller MA, Carroll KC, et al. Manual of clinical microbiology. 11th jection in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994; 79:1605–8.
edn. Washington: American Society of Microbiology, 2015. 97. Charles PE, Kus E, Aho S, et al. Serum procalcitonin for the early recognition of
70. Bonten MJ, Bergmans DC, Stobberingh EE, et al. Implementation of broncho- nosocomial infection in the critically ill patients: a preliminary report. BMC In-
scopic techniques in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia to reduce fect Dis 2009; 9:49.
antibiotic use. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156:1820–4. 98. Muller F, Christ-Crain M, Bregenzer T, et al. Procalcitonin levels predict bacter-
71. Brun-Buisson C, Fartoukh M, Lechapt E, et al. Contribution of blinded, protected emia in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective cohort
quantitative specimens to the diagnostic and therapeutic management of venti- trial. Chest 2010; 138:121–9.
lator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2005; 128:533–44. 99. Assicot M, Gendrel D, Carsin H, Raymond J, Guilbaud J, Bohuon C. High serum
72. Marik PE, Lynott J, Croxton M, Palmer E, Miller L, Zaloga GP. The effect of procalcitonin concentrations in patients with sepsis and infection. Lancet 1993;
blind-protected specimen brush sampling on antibiotic use in patients with sus- 341:515–8.
pected ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Intensive Care Med 2001; 16:42–6. 100. Luyt CE, Combes A, Reynaud C, et al. Usefulness of procalcitonin for the diag-
73. Meduri GU, Wunderink RG, Leeper KV, Beals DH. Management of bacterial nosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:1434–40.
pneumonia in ventilated patients. Protected bronchoalveolar lavage as a diagnos- 101. Dallas J, Brown SM, Hock K, et al. Diagnostic utility of plasma procalcitonin for nos-
tic tool. Chest 1992; 101:500–8. ocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit setting. Respir Care 2011; 56:412–9.
74. Babcock HM, Zack JE, Garrison T, Trovillion E, Kollef MH, Fraser VJ. Ventila- 102. Ramirez P, Garcia MA, Ferrer M, et al. Sequential measurements of procalcitonin
tor-associated pneumonia in a multi-hospital system: differences in microbiology levels in diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2008;
by location. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:853–8. 31:356–62.
75. Baker AM, Bowton DL, Haponik EF. Decision making in nosocomial pneumo- 103. Duflo F, Debon R, Monneret G, Bienvenu J, Chassard D, Allaouchiche B. Alve-
nia. An analytic approach to the interpretation of quantitative bronchoscopic cul- olar and serum procalcitonin: diagnostic and prognostic value in ventilator-asso-
tures. Chest 1995; 107:85–95. ciated pneumonia. Anesthesiology 2002; 96:74–9.

104. Liao X, Kang Y. Prognostic value of procalcitonin levels in predicting death for 129. Martin-Loeches I, Povoa P, Rodriguez A, et al. Incidence and prognosis of ven-
patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36: tilator-associated tracheobronchitis (TAVeM): a multicentre, prospective, obser-
S102. vational study. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3:859–68.
105. Zhou CD, Lu ZY, Ren NZ, Zhang GC. Diagnostic value of procalcitonin in ven- 130. Nseir S, Martin-Loeches I, Makris D, et al. Impact of appropriate antimicrobial
tilator associated pneumonia [in Chinese]. Chin Crit Care Med 2006; 18:370–2. treatment on transition from ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis to ventila-
106. Jensen JU, Hein L, Lundgren B, et al. Procalcitonin-guided interventions against tor-associated pneumonia. Crit Care 2014; 18:R129.
infections to increase early appropriate antibiotics and improve survival in the 131. Beardsley JR, Williamson JC, Johnson JW, Ohl CA, Karchmer TB, Bowton DL.
intensive care unit: a randomized trial. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:2048–58. Using local microbiologic data to develop institution-specific guidelines for the
107. Bouchon A, Dietrich J, Colonna M. Cutting edge: inflammatory responses can be treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2006; 130:787–93.
triggered by TREM-1, a novel receptor expressed on neutrophils and monocytes. 132. Namias N, Samiian L, Nino D, et al. Incidence and susceptibility of pathogenic
J Immunol 2000; 164:4991–5. bacteria vary between intensive care units within a single hospital: implications
108. Bopp C, Hofer S, Bouchon A, Zimmermann JB, Martin E, Weigand MA. Soluble for empiric antibiotic strategies. J Trauma 2000; 49:638–45; discussion 45–6.
TREM-1 is not suitable for distinguishing between systemic inflammatory re- 133. Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Tenover FC, Gaynes RP, McGowan JE Jr. Antimicrobial
sponse syndrome and sepsis survivors and nonsurvivors in the early stage of resistance prevalence rates in hospital antibiograms reflect prevalence rates
acute inflammation. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:504–7. among pathogens associated with hospital-acquired infections. Clin Infect Dis
109. Ferat-Osorio E, Wong-Baeza I, Esquivel-Callejas N, et al. Triggering receptor ex- 2001; 33:324–30.
pressed on myeloid cells-1 expression on monocytes is associated with inflamma- 134. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Analysis and presentation of cumu-
tion but not with infection in acute pancreatitis. Crit Care 2009; 13:R69. lative antimicrobial suseptibility test data. Approved guideline. 4th ed. CLSI
110. Palazzo SJ, Simpson TA, Simmons JM, Schnapp LM. Soluble triggering receptor document M39-A4. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2014.
expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) as a diagnostic marker of ventilator-as- 135. Garonzik SM, Li J, Thamlikitkul V, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of colistin
sociated pneumonia. Respir Care 2012; 57:2052–8. methanesulfonate and formed colistin in critically ill patients from a multicenter
111. Anand NJ, Zuick S, Klesney-Tait J, Kollef MH. Diagnostic implications of soluble study provide dosing suggestions for various categories of patients. Antimicrob
triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 in BAL fluid of patients with pul- Agents Chemother 2011; 55:3284–94.
monary infiltrates in the ICU. Chest 2009; 135:641–7. 136. Nation RL, Li J, Cars O, et al. Framework for optimisation of the clinical use of
112. Determann RM, Millo JL, Gibot S, et al. Serial changes in soluble triggering re- colistin and polymyxin B: the Prato polymyxin consensus. Lancet Infect Dis
ceptor expressed on myeloid cells in the lung during development of ventilator- 2015; 15:225–34.

associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:1495–500. 137. Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Jones RN. In vitro activity of beta-lactam antimicrobial
113. Horonenko G, Hoyt JC, Robbins RA, et al. Soluble triggering receptor expressed agents in combination with aztreonam tested against metallo-beta-lactamase-
on myeloid cell-1 is increased in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: a producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. J Chemother
preliminary report. Chest 2007; 132:58–63. 2005; 17:622–7.
114. Ramirez P, Kot P, Marti V, et al. Diagnostic implications of soluble triggering re- 138. Sievert DM, Ricks P, Edwards JR, et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens asso-
ceptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 in patients with acute respiratory distress ciated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the Na-
syndrome and abdominal diseases: a preliminary observational study. Crit tional Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and
Care 2011; 15:R50. Prevention, 2009–2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:1–14.
115. Gibot S, Cravoisy A, Levy B, Bene MC, Faure G, Bollaert PE. Soluble triggering 139. Jones RN. Microbial etiologies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and
receptor expressed on myeloid cells and the diagnosis of pneumonia. N Engl J ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51(suppl 1):
Med 2004; 350:451–8. S81–7.
116. Oppert M, Reinicke A, Muller C, Barckow D, Frei U, Eckardt KU. Elevations in 140. Kollef MH, Ward S. The influence of mini-BAL cultures on patient outcomes:
procalcitonin but not C-reactive protein are associated with pneumonia after car- implications for the antibiotic management of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
diopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2002; 53:167–70. Chest 1998; 113:412–20.
117. Fartoukh M, Maitre B, Honore S, Cerf C, Zahar JR, Brun-Buisson C. Diagnosing 141. Kuti EL, Patel AA, Coleman CI. Impact of inappropriate antibiotic therapy on
pneumonia during mechanical ventilation: the clinical pulmonary infection score mortality in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia and blood stream in-
revisited. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 168:173–9. fection: a meta-analysis. J Crit Care 2008; 23:91–100.
118. Luna CM, Aruj P, Niederman MS, et al. Appropriateness and delay to initiate 142. Muscedere JG, Shorr AF, Jiang X, Day A, Heyland DK; Canadian Critical Care
therapy in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2006; 27:158–64. Trials Group. The adequacy of timely empiric antibiotic therapy for ventilator-
119. Shan J, Chen HL, Zhu JH. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical pulmonary infection associated pneumonia: an important determinant of outcome. J Crit Care 2012;
score for ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Respir Care 2011; 27:322.e7–14.
56:1087–94. 143. Rello J, Ulldemolins M, Lisboa T, et al. Determinants of prescription and choice
120. Singh N, Rogers P, Atwood CW, Wagener MM, Yu VL. Short-course empiric an- of empirical therapy for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia.
tibiotic therapy for patients with pulmonary infiltrates in the intensive care unit. Eur Respir J 2011; 37:1332–9.
A proposed solution for indiscriminate antibiotic prescription. Am J Respir Crit 144. Vardakas KZ, Mavros MN, Roussos N, Falagas ME. Meta-analysis of randomized
Care Med 2000; 162(2 pt 1):505–11. controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with gram-positive
121. Veinstein A, Brun-Buisson C, Derrode N, et al. Validation of an algorithm based infections: focus on the study design. Mayo Clin Proc 2012; 87:349–63.
on direct examination of specimens in suspected ventilator-associated pneumo- 145. Walkey AJ, O’Donnell MR, Wiener RS. Linezolid vs glycopeptide antibiotics for
nia. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32:676–83. the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomi-
122. Nseir S, Di Pompeo C, Soubrier S, et al. Effect of ventilator-associated tracheo- al pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest 2011;
bronchitis on outcome in patients without chronic respiratory failure: a case-con- 139:1148–55.
trol study. Crit Care 2005; 9:R238–45. 146. Kalil AC, Klompas M, Haynatzki G, Rupp ME. Treatment of hospital-acquired
123. Nseir S, Favory R, Jozefowicz E, et al. Antimicrobial treatment for ventilator-as- pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
sociated tracheobronchitis: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Crit BMJ Open 2013; 3:e003912.
Care 2008; 12:R62. 147. Kalil AC, Murthy MH, Hermsen ED, Neto FK, Sun J, Rupp ME. Linezolid versus
124. Palmer LB, Smaldone GC. Reduction of bacterial resistance with inhaled vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and
antibiotics in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1802–8.
189:1225–33. 148. Torres A, Rubinstein E, Corey GR, Stryjewski ME, Barriere SL. Analysis of phase
125. Palmer LB, Smaldone GC, Chen JJ, et al. Aerosolized antibiotics and ventilator- 3 telavancin nosocomial pneumonia data excluding patients with severe renal im-
associated tracheobronchitis in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2008; pairment and acute renal failure. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69:1119–26.
36:2008–13. 149. Pasquale TR, Tan MJ, Trienski TL, File TM Jr. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
126. Nseir S, Di Pompeo C, Pronnier P, et al. Nosocomial tracheobronchitis in me- cus aureus nosocomial pneumonia patients treated with ceftaroline: retrospective
chanically ventilated patients: incidence, aetiology and outcome. Eur Respir J case series of 10 patients. J Chemother 2015; 27:29–34.
2002; 20:1483–9. 150. Barber KE, Smith JR, Raut A, Rybak MJ. Evaluation of tedizolid against Staph-
127. Nseir S, Di Pompeo C, Soubrier S, et al. Outcomes of ventilated COPD patients with ylococcus aureus and enterococci with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, dap-
nosocomial tracheobronchitis: a case-control study. Infection 2004; 32:210–6. tomycin or linezolid. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71:152–5.
128. Dallas J, Skrupky L, Abebe N, Boyle WA 3rd, Kollef MH. Ventilator-associated 151. Cepeda JA, Whitehouse T, Cooper B, et al. Linezolid versus teicoplanin in the
tracheobronchitis in a mixed surgical and medical ICU population. Chest 2011; treatment of gram-positive infections in the critically ill: a randomized, dou-
139:513–8. ble-blind, multicentre study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53:345–55.
152. Wilcox M, Nathwani D, Dryden M. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the 174. Beaucaire G. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of isepamicin compared with
treatment of suspected or proven gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemo- amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia and septicaemia. J Chemo-
ther 2004; 53:335–44. ther 1995; 7(suppl 2):165–73.
153. Rubinstein E, Lalani T, Corey GR, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for 175. Beaucaire G, Nicolas MH, Martin C, et al. Phare study. Comparative study of
hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis combined cefepime-amikacin versus ceftazidime combined with amikacin in
2011; 52:31–40. the treatment of nosocomial pneumonias in ventilated patients. Multicenter
154. Corey GR, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, et al. Telavancin for hospital-acquired pneumo- group study [in French]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1999; 18:186–95.
nia: clinical response and 28-day survival. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 176. Manhold C, von Rolbicki U, Brase R, et al. Outbreaks of Staphylococcus aureus
58:2030–7. infections during treatment of late onset pneumonia with ciprofloxacin in a pro-
155. Freire AT, Melnyk V, Kim MJ, et al. Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/ spective, randomized study. Intensive Care Med 1998; 24:1327–30.
cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol In- 177. Saginur R, Garber G, Darling G, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of
fect Dis 2010; 68:140–51. intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin with intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment
156. Awad SS, Rodriguez AH, Chuang YC, et al. A phase 3 randomized double-blind of nosocomial pneumonia. Can J Infect Dis 1997; 8:89–94.
comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the 178. Ahmed SM, Choudhary J, Ahmed M, Arora V, Parul , Ali S. Treatment of ven-
treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:51–61. tilator-associated pneumonia with piperacillin-tazobactum and amikacin vs cefe-
157. Chastre J, Wunderink R, Prokocimer P, Lee M, Kaniga K, Friedland I. Efficacy pime and levofloxacin: a randomized prospective study. Indian J Crit Care Med
and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventila- 2007; 11:117–21.
tor-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized study. Crit Care Med 179. Rea-Neto A, Niederman M, Lobo SM, et al. Efficacy and safety of doripenem ver-
2008; 36:1089–96. sus piperacillin/tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, open-
158. Kollef MH, Chastre J, Clavel M, et al. A randomized trial of 7-day doripenem label, multicenter study. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24:2113–26.
versus 10-day imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit 180. Brun-Buisson C, Sollet JP, Schweich H, Briere S, Petit C. Treatment of ventilator-
Care 2012; 16:R218. associated pneumonia with piperacillin-tazobactam/amikacin versus ceftazi-
159. Alvarez Lerma F; Serious Infection Study Group. Efficacy of meropenem as dime/amikacin: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. VAP Study Group.
monotherapy in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Chemother Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26:346–54.
2001; 13:70–81. 181. Brown RB, Lemeshow S, Teres D. Moxalactam vs carbenicillin plus tobramycin:
160. Alvarez-Lerma F, Insausti-Ordenana J, Jorda-Marcos R, et al. Efficacy and toler- treatment of nosocomial gram-negative bacillary pneumonias in non-neutrope-

ability of piperacillin/tazobactam versus ceftazidime in association with amikacin nic patients. Curr Ther Res 1984; 36:557–64.
for treating nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients: a prospective ran- 182. Maskin B, Fontan PA, Spinedi EG, Gammella D, Badolati A. Evaluation of endo-
domized multicenter trial. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27:493–502. toxin release and cytokine production induced by antibiotics in patients with
161. Sieger B, Berman SJ, Geckler RW, Farkas SA. Empiric treatment of hospital-ac- gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:349–54.
quired lower respiratory tract infections with meropenem or ceftazidime with to- 183. Joshi M, Metzler M, McCarthy M, Olvey S, Kassira W, Cooper A. Comparison of
bramycin: a randomized study. Meropenem Lower Respiratory Infection Group. piperacillin/tazobactam and imipenem/cilastatin, both in combination with to-
Crit Care Med 1997; 25:1663–70. bramycin, administered every 6 h for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Re-
162. Heyland DK, Dodek P, Muscedere J, Day A, Cook D; Canadian Critical Care Tri- spir Med 2006; 100:1554–65.
als Group. Randomized trial of combination versus monotherapy for the empiric 184. Florescu DF, Qiu F, McCartan MA, Mindru C, Fey PD, Kalil AC. What is the
treatment of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2008; efficacy and safety of colistin for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneu-
36:737–44. monia? A systematic review and meta-regression. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:
163. Polk HC Jr, Livingston DH, Fry DE, et al. Treatment of pneumonia in mechan- 670–80.
ically ventilated trauma patients. Results of a prospective trial. Arch Surg 1997; 185. Liscio JL, Mahoney MV, Hirsch EB. Ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/
132:1086–92. avibactam: two novel beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination agents
164. Croce MA, Fabian TC, Stewart RM, et al. Empiric monotherapy versus combina- for the treatment of resistant gram-negative bacterial infections. Int J Antimicrob
tion therapy of nosocomial pneumonia in trauma patients. J Trauma 1993; Agents 2015; 46:266–71.
35:303–9; discussion 309–11. 186. Gottesman T, Yossepowitch O, Lerner E, et al. The accuracy of Gram stain of re-
165. Reeves JH, Russell GM, Cade JF, McDonald M. Comparison of ceftriaxone with spiratory specimens in excluding Staphylococcus aureus in ventilator-associated
cefotaxime in serious chest infections. Chest 1989; 96:1292–7. pneumonia. J Crit Care 2014; 29:739–42.
166. Thomas PD, Daly S, Misan G, Steele T. Comparison of the efficacy and adverse 187. Tetenta S, Metersky ML. Tracheal aspirate Gram stain has limited sensitivity and
effect profile of cefotaxime, 3 g/day, and ceftriaxone, 2 g/day, in the treatment of specificity for detecting Staphylococcus aureus. Respirology 2011; 16:86–9.
nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections in ICU patients. Eur Respir Rev 188. O’Horo JC, Thompson D, Safdar N. Is the Gram stain useful in the microbiologic
1994; 4:321–8. diagnosis of VAP? A meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55:551–61.
167. Fink MP, Snydman DR, Niederman MS, et al. Treatment of severe pneumonia in 189. McKinnell JA, Huang SS, Eells SJ, Cui E, Miller LG. Quantifying the impact of
hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial extranasal testing of body sites for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneu- colonization at the time of hospital or intensive care unit admission. Infect Con-
monia Study Group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38:547–57. trol Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:161–70.
168. Shorr AF, Zadeikis N, Jackson WL, et al. Levofloxacin for treatment of ventilator- 190. Davis KA, Stewart JJ, Crouch HK, Florez CE, Hospenthal DR. Methicillin-
associated pneumonia: a subgroup analysis from a randomized trial. Clin Infect resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares colonization at hospital admis-
Dis 2005; 40(suppl 2):S123–9. sion and its effect on subsequent MRSA infection. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:
169. West M, Boulanger BR, Fogarty C, et al. Levofloxacin compared with imipenem/ 776–82.
cilastatin followed by ciprofloxacin in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia: 191. Paul M, Shani V, Muchtar E, Kariv G, Robenshtok E, Leibovici L. Systematic re-
a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label study. Clin Ther 2003; view and meta-analysis of the efficacy of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy
25:485–506. for sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54:4851–63.
170. Kljucar S, Heimesaat M, von Pritzbuer E, Olms K. Ceftazidime with and without 192. Swanson JM, Wells DL. Empirical antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated
tobramycin versus azlocillin plus tobramycin in the therapy of bronchopulmonary pneumonia. Antibiotics 2013; 2:339–51.
infections in intensive care patients [in German]. Infection 1987; 15(suppl 4): 193. Micek ST, Ward S, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. A randomized controlled trial of an
S185–91. antibiotic discontinuation policy for clinically suspected ventilator-associated
171. Damas P, Garweg C, Monchi M, et al. Combination therapy versus monotherapy: pneumonia. Chest 2004; 125:1791–9.
a randomised pilot study on the evolution of inflammatory parameters after ven- 194. Joffe AR, Muscedere J, Marshall JC, Su Y, Heyland DK; Canadian Critical Care
tilator associated pneumonia [ISRCTN31976779]. Crit Care 2006; 10:R52. Trials Group. The safety of targeted antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated
172. Hartenauer U, Weilemann LS, Bodmann KF, Ritzerfeld WW, Asmus S, Koch pneumonia: a multicenter observational study. J Crit Care 2008; 23:82–90.
EM. Comparative clinical trial of ceftazidime and imipenem/cilastatin in patients 195. Hibbard ML, Kopelman TR, O’Neill PJ, et al. Empiric, broad-spectrum antibiotic
with severe nosocomial pneumonias and septicaemias. J Hosp Infect 1990; 15 therapy with an aggressive de-escalation strategy does not induce gram-negative
(suppl A):61–4. pathogen resistance in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Surg Infect (Larchmt)
173. Torres A, Bauer TT, Leon-Gil C, et al. Treatment of severe nosocomial pneumo- 2010; 11:427–32.
nia: a prospective randomised comparison of intravenous ciprofloxacin with imi- 196. Joung MK, Lee JA, Moon SY, et al. Impact of de-escalation therapy on clinical
penem/cilastatin. Thorax 2000; 55:1033–9. outcomes for intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia. Crit Care 2011; 15:R79.

197. Weiss CH, Dibardino D, Rho J, Sung N, Collander B, Wunderink RG. A clinical 220. Giannella M, Pinilla B, Capdevila JA, et al. Pneumonia treated in the internal
trial comparing physician prompting with an unprompted automated electronic medicine department: focus on healthcare-associated pneumonia. Clin Microbiol
checklist to reduce empirical antibiotic utilization. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2563–9. Infect 2012; 18:786–94.
198. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis 221. Piskin N, Aydemir H, Oztoprak N, et al. Inadequate treatment of ventilator-as-
and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious sociated and hospital-acquired pneumonia: risk factors and impact on outcomes.
Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59:e10–52. BMC Infect Dis 2012; 12:268.
199. Mentzelopoulos SD, Pratikaki M, Platsouka E, et al. Prolonged use of carbape- 222. Esperatti M, Ferrer M, Theessen A, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive
nems and colistin predisposes to ventilator-associated pneumonia by pandrug- care unit acquired by mechanically ventilated versus nonventilated patients. Am J
resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1524–32. Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:1533–9.
200. Pakyz AL, Oinonen M, Polk RE. Relationship of carbapenem restriction in 22 223. Maruyama T, Niederman MS, Kobayashi T, et al. A prospective comparison of
university teaching hospitals to carbapenem use and carbapenem-resistant Pseu- nursing home-acquired pneumonia with hospital-acquired pneumonia in non-
domonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:1983–6. intubated elderly. Respir Med 2008; 102:1287–95.
201. Marchaim D, Chopra T, Bhargava A, et al. Recent exposure to antimicrobials and 224. Barreiro-Lopez B, Tricas JM, Mauri E, Quintana S, Garau J. Risk factors and
carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: the role of antimicrobial stewardship. prognostic factors in nosocomial pneumonia outside the intensive care units set-
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012; 33:817–30. ting [in Spanish]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2005; 23:519–24.
202. Miyawaki K, Miwa Y, Seki M, Asari S, Tomono K, Kurokawa N. Correlation be- 225. Takano Y, Sakamoto O, Suga M, Muranaka H, Ando M. Prognostic factors of
tween the consumption of meropenem or doripenem and meropenem suscept- nosocomial pneumonia in general wards: a prospective multivariate analysis in
ibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a university hospital in Japan. Biol Pharm Japan. Respir Med 2002; 96:18–23.
Bull 2012; 35:946–9. 226. Schussler O, Alifano M, Dermine H, et al. Postoperative pneumonia after major
203. McDougall DA, Morton AP, Playford EG. Association of ertapenem and anti- lung resection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:1161–9.
pseudomonal carbapenem usage and carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas 227. Watanabe A, Yanagihara K, Kohno S, Matsushima T; HAP Study Group. Multi-
aeruginosa among 12 hospitals in Queensland, Australia. J Antimicrob Chemo- center survey on hospital-acquired pneumonia and the clinical efficacy of first-
ther 2013; 68:457–60. line antibiotics in Japan. Intern Med 2008; 47:245–54.
204. Routsi C, Pratikaki M, Platsouka E, et al. Risk factors for carbapenem-resistant 228. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Sickbert-Bennett EE, Samsa GP, Brown V, Niederman
gram-negative bacteremia in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med MS. Microbiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia compared with that of
2013; 39:1253–61. hospital-acquired pneumonia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28:825–31.

205. Pena C, Guzman A, Suarez C, et al. Effects of carbapenem exposure on the risk 229. Kim J, Chung J, Choi S-H, et al. Early use of imipenem/cilastatin and vancomycin
for digestive tract carriage of intensive care unit-endemic carbapenem-resistant followed by de-escalation versus conventional antimicrobials without de-escala-
Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains in critically ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Che- tion for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia in a medical ICU: a random-
mother 2007; 51:1967–71. ized clinical trial. Crit Care 2012; 16:1–9.
206. Ogutlu A, Guclu E, Karabay O, Utku AC, Tuna N, Yahyaoglu M. Effects of car- 230. Kohlenberg A, Schwab F, Behnke M, Geffers C, Gastmeier P. Pneumonia associ-
bapenem consumption on the prevalence of Acinetobacter infection in intensive ated with invasive and noninvasive ventilation: an analysis of the German noso-
care unit patients. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2014; 13:7. comial infection surveillance system database. Intensive Care Med 2010;
207. Armand-Lefevre L, Angebault C, Barbier F, et al. Emergence of imipenem-resis- 36:971–8.
tant gram-negative bacilli in intestinal flora of intensive care patients. Antimicrob 231. Herer B, Fuhrman C, Demontrond D, Gazevic Z, Housset B, Chouaid C. Diag-
Agents Chemother 2013; 57:1488–95. nosis of nosocomial pneumonia in medical ward: repeatability of the protected
208. Moreira MR, Guimaraes MP, Rodrigues AA, Gontijo Filho PP. Antimicrobial use, specimen brush. Eur Respir J 2001; 18:157–63.
incidence, etiology and resistance patterns in bacteria causing ventilator-associ- 232. Edis EC, Hatipoglu ON, Yilmam I, Eker A, Tansel O, Sut N. The importance of
ated pneumonia in a clinical-surgical intensive care unit. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop pathogen identification in the success of treatment of hospital acquired pneumo-
2013; 46:39–44. nias. Turk Toraks Dergisi 2010; 11:155–9.
209. Swaminathan M, Sharma S, Poliansky Blash S, et al. Prevalence and risk factors 233. Giunta V, Ferrer M, Esperatti M, et al. ICU-acquired pneumonia with or without
for acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the setting of ende- etiologic diagnosis: a comparison of outcomes. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2133–43.
micity. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:809–17. 234. Fernandez-Guerrero M, Gudiol F, Rodriguez-Torres A, Arnau C, Valdes L, Vallve
210. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Annual epidemi- C. Nosocomial pneumonia: comparative multicentre trial between monotherapy
ological report: antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections with cefotaxime and treatment with antibiotic combinations. Infection 1991; 19
2014. Stockholm: ECDC, 2015. (suppl 6):S320–5.
211. Jacob J, Klein E, Laxminarayan R, et al. Carbapenem resistant enterobactereciae. 235. Schmitt DV, Leitner E, Welte T, Lode H. Piperacillin/tazobactam vs imipenem/
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013; 62:165–70. cilastatin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia—a double blind prospective
212. Thaden JT, Lewis SS, Hazen KC, et al. Rising rates of carbapenem-resistant enter- multicentre study. Infection 2006; 34:127–34.
obacteriaceae in community hospitals: a mixed-methods review of epidemiology 236. Hoffken G, Barth J, Rubinstein E, Beckmann H; HAP Study Group. A random-
and microbiology practices in a network of community hospitals in the south- ized study of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin in comparison to sequen-
eastern United States. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35:978–83. tial intravenous ceftriaxone/oral cefuroxime axetil in patients with hospital-
213. Luna CM, Sarquis S, Niederman MS, et al. Is a strategy based on routine endo- acquired pneumonia. Infection 2007; 35:414–20.
tracheal cultures the best way to prescribe antibiotics in ventilator-associated 237. Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Hammel JP, et al. Pharmacological and patient-spe-
pneumonia? Chest 2013; 144:63–71. cific response determinants in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia treated
214. Yakovlev SV, Stratchounski LS, Woods GL, et al. Ertapenem versus cefepime for with tigecycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:1065–72.
initial empirical treatment of pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in 238. Pea F, Di Qual E, Cusenza A, Brollo L, Baldassarre M, Furlanut M. Pharmacoki-
hospitals outside the intensive care unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; netics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous levofloxacin in patients with early-
25:633–41. onset ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Pharmacokinet 2003; 42:589–98.
215. Alsuraikh M, Hamdy G. Incidence, risk factors, and causative agents of hospital 239. Roberts JA, Taccone FS, Udy AA, Vincent JL, Jacobs F, Lipman J. Vancomycin
acquired pneumonia (nosocomial pneumonia) in adult hospitalized patients in dosing in critically ill patients: robust methods for improved continuous-infusion
medical wards of a general hospital in Kuwait. Kuwait Med J 2008; 40:297–300. regimens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55:2704–9.
216. Avci M, Ozgenc O, Coskuner A, Bozca B, Kidak L, Mermut G. Hospital-acquired 240. Anevlavis S, Petroglou N, Tzavaras A, et al. A prospective study of the diagnostic
pneumonia in nonintensive care unit wards. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40:357–63. utility of sputum Gram stain in pneumonia. J Infect 2009; 59:83–9.
217. Cakir Edis E, Hatipoglu ON, Yilmam I, Eker A, Tansel O, Sut N. Hospital-ac- 241. Montravers P, Veber B, Auboyer C, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic manage-
quired pneumonia developed in non-intensive care units. Respiration 2009; ment of nosocomial pneumonia in surgical patients: results of the Eole study.
78:416–22. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:368–75.
218. Espejo E, Andres M, Torviso J, et al. Hospital-acquired bacteraemic pneumonia 242. Hanes SD, Wood GC, Herring V, et al. Intermittent and continuous ceftazidime
in non-ventilated patients. In: 21st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology infusion for critically ill trauma patients. Am J Surg 2000; 179:436–40.
and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID)/27th International Congress of Chemother- 243. Nicolau DP, McNabb J, Lacy MK, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Continuous
apy (ICC) Posters 2011: S478. versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in intensive care unit patients
219. Kollef MH, Shorr A, Tabak YP, Gupta V, Liu LZ, Johannes RS. Epidemiology and with nosocomial pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001; 17:497–504.
outcomes of health-care-associated pneumonia: results from a large US database 244. Sakka SG, Glauner AK, Bulitta JB, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and phar-
of culture-positive pneumonia. Chest 2005; 128:3854–62. macodynamics of continuous versus short-term infusion of imipenem-cilastatin
in critically ill patients in a randomized, controlled trial. Antimicrob Agents Che- 267. Plachouras D, Karvanen M, Friberg LE, et al. Population pharmacokinetic anal-
mother 2007; 51:3304–10. ysis of colistin methanesulfonate and colistin after intravenous administration in
245. Jeffres MN, Isakow W, Doherty JA, Micek ST, Kollef MH. A retrospective analysis critically ill patients with infections caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimi-
of possible renal toxicity associated with vancomycin in patients with health care- crob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:3430–6.
associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Clin Ther 268. Markou N, Markantonis SL, Dimitrakis E, et al. Colistin serum concentrations
2007; 29:1107–15. after intravenous administration in critically ill patients with serious multi-
246. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Martin MM, Iribarren JL, Jimenez JJ, Mora ML. Clinical cure of drug-resistant, gram-negative bacilli infections: a prospective, open-label, uncon-
ventilator-associated pneumonia treated with piperacillin/tazobactam administered trolled study. Clin Ther 2008; 30:143–51.
by continuous or intermittent infusion. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009; 33:464–8. 269. Fagon J, Patrick H, Haas DW, et al. Treatment of gram-positive nosocomial
247. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Palmero S, et al. Comparison of clinical cure rates in adults pneumonia. Prospective randomized comparison of quinupristin/dalfopristin
with ventilator-associated pneumonia treated with intravenous ceftazidime ad- versus vancomycin. Nosocomial Pneumonia Group. Am J Respir Crit Care
ministered by continuous or intermittent infusion: a retrospective, nonrandom- Med 2000; 161(3 pt 1):753–62.
ized, open-label, historical chart review. Clin Ther 2007; 29:2433–9. 270. Jung YJ, Koh Y, Hong SB, et al. Effect of vancomycin plus rifampicin in the treat-
248. Scaglione F, Esposito S, Leone S, et al. Feedback dose alteration significantly af- ment of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Crit
fects probability of pathogen eradication in nosocomial pneumonia. Eur Respir J Care Med 2010; 38:175–80.
2009; 34:394–400. 271. Kohno S, Yamaguchi K, Aikawa N, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the
249. Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in
care unit patients: are current beta-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60:1361–9.
ill patients? Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58:1072–83. 272. Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H, Hunt JL, Batts DH, Hafkin B. Linezolid versus
250. Roberts JA, Lipman J. Pharmacokinetic issues for antibiotics in the critically ill vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in-
patient. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:840–51; quiz 59. fections. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:1481–90.
251. Roberts JA, Lipman J. Optimal doripenem dosing simulations in critically ill nos- 273. Wunderink RG, Mendelson MH, Somero MS, et al. Early microbiological re-
ocomial pneumonia patients with obesity, augmented renal clearance, and de- sponse to linezolid vs vancomycin in ventilator-associated pneumonia due to
creased bacterial susceptibility. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:489–95. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Chest 2008; 134:1200–7.
252. Sinnollareddy MG, Roberts MS, Lipman J, Roberts JA. Beta-lactam pharmacoki- 274. Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, et al. Linezolid in methicillin-resis-
netics and pharmacodynamics in critically ill patients and strategies for dose op- tant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled

timization: a structured review. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2012; 39:489–96. study. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:621–9.
253. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for 275. Montedori A, Bonacini MI, Casazza G, et al. Modified versus standard intention-
patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis to-treat reporting: are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship,
2014; 14:498–509. and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional study. Trials 2011; 12:58.
254. Lux LJ, Posey RE, Daniels LS, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic measures 276. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Commit-
for guiding antibiotic treatment for hospital-acquired pneumonia. Rockville, MD: tee. FDA advisory committee briefing document: telavancin for nosocomial pneu-
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014. Comparative Effectiveness ?Re- monia, 2012. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/
views, No 136. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK266264/. Ac- CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/Anti-InfectiveDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/
cessed 5 January 2015. UCM329482.pdf. Accessed January 2013.
255. Hallal A, Cohn SM, Namias N, et al. Aerosolized tobramycin in the treatment of 277. Ramsey KM, Mazer MA. Addition of rifampin to vancomycin for the treatment
ventilator-associated pneumonia: a pilot study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2007; of pneumonias due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: caveat emptor.
8:73–82. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:326–7.
256. Kofteridis DP, Alexopoulou C, Valachis A, et al. Aerosolized plus intravenous co- 278. Lahey T. Questionable superiority of linezolid for methicillin-resistant Staphy-
listin versus intravenous colistin alone for the treatment of ventilator-associated lococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: watch where you step. Clin Infect Dis
pneumonia: a matched case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:1238–44. 2012; 55:159–60.
257. Korbila IP, Michalopoulos A, Rafailidis PI, Nikita D, Samonis G, Falagas ME. In- 279. Holmes NE, Turnidge JD, Munckhof WJ, et al. Antibiotic choice may not explain
haled colistin as adjunctive therapy to intravenous colistin for the treatment of poorer outcomes in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and
microbiologically documented ventilator-associated pneumonia: a comparative high vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Infect Dis 2011;
cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16:1230–6. 204:340–7.
258. Le Conte P, Potel G, Clementi E, et al. Administration of tobramycin aerosols in 280. Steinkraus G, White R, Friedrich L. Vancomycin MIC creep in non-vancomycin-
patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a preliminary study [in French]. Presse intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), vancomycin-susceptible clinical
Med 2000; 29:76–8. methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001–05. J Antimi-
259. Rattanaumpawan P, Lorsutthitham J, Ungprasert P, Angkasekwinai N, Thamli- crob Chemother 2007; 60:788–94.
kitkul V. Randomized controlled trial of nebulized colistimethate sodium as ad- 281. Adam HJ, Louie L, Watt C, et al. Detection and characterization of heterogeneous
junctive therapy of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by gram-negative vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus isolates in Canada: results from
bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65:2645–9. the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program, 1995–2006. Antimi-
260. Doshi NM, Cook CH, Mount KL, et al. Adjunctive aerosolized colistin for multi- crob Agents Chemother 2010; 54:945–9.
drug resistant gram-negative pneumonia in the critically ill: a retrospective study. 282. Holmes RL, Jorgensen JH. Inhibitory activities of 11 antimicrobial agents and
BMC Anesthesiol 2013; 13:45. bactericidal activities of vancomycin and daptomycin against invasive methicil-
261. Tumbarello M, De Pascale G, Trecarichi EM, et al. Effect of aerosolized colistin as lin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates obtained from 1999 through 2006.
adjunctive treatment on the outcomes of microbiologically documented ventila- Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52:757–60.
tor-associated pneumonia caused by colistin-only susceptible gram-negative bac- 283. Pitz AM, Yu F, Hermsen ED, Rupp ME, Fey PD, Olsen KM. Vancomycin sus-
teria. Chest 2013; 144:1768–75. ceptibility trends and prevalence of heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate
262. Brown RB, Kruse JA, Counts GW, Russell JA, Christou NV, Sands ML. Double- Staphylococcus aureus in clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolates. J Clin
blind study of endotracheal tobramycin in the treatment of gram-negative bacte- Microbiol 2011; 49:269–74.
rial pneumonia. The Endotracheal Tobramycin Study Group. Antimicrob Agents 284. Sader HS, Fey PD, Limaye AP, et al. Evaluation of vancomycin and daptomycin
Chemother 1990; 34:269–72. potency trends (MIC creep) against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
263. Mendelman PM, Smith AL, Levy J, Weber A, Ramsey B, Davis RL. Aminoglyco- isolates collected in nine U.S. medical centers from 2002 to 2006. Antimicrob
side penetration, inactivation, and efficacy in cystic fibrosis sputum. Am Rev Re- Agents Chemother 2009; 53:4127–32.
spir Dis 1985; 132:761–5. 285. van Hal SJ, Barbagiannakos T, Jones M, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
264. Panidis D, Markantonis SL, Boutzouka E, Karatzas S, Baltopoulos G. Penetration aureus vancomycin susceptibility testing: methodology correlations, temporal
of gentamicin into the alveolar lining fluid of critically ill patients with ventilator- trends and clonal patterns. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66:2284–7.
associated pneumonia. Chest 2005; 128:545–52. 286. Honda H, Doern CD, Michael-Dunne W Jr, Warren DK. The impact of
265. Valcke YJ, Vogelaers DP, Colardyn FA, Pauwels RA. Penetration of netilmicin in vancomycin susceptibility on treatment outcomes among patients with
the lower respiratory tract after once-daily dosing. Chest 1992; 101:1028–32. methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. BMC Infect Dis 2011;
266. Boselli E, Breilh D, Djabarouti S, et al. Reliability of mini-bronchoalveolar lavage 11:335.
for the measurement of epithelial lining fluid concentrations of tobramycin in 287. Kalil AC, Van Schooneveld TC, Fey PD, Rupp ME. Association between vanco-
critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1519–23. mycin minimum inhibitory concentration and mortality among patients with

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta- 309. Gales AC, Jones RN, Sader HS. Contemporary activity of colistin and polymyxin
analysis. JAMA 2014; 312:1552–64. B against a worldwide collection of gram-negative pathogens: results from the
288. Walraven CJ, North MS, Marr-Lyon L, Deming P, Sakoulas G, Mercier RC. Site of SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2006–09). J Antimicrob Chemo-
infection rather than vancomycin MIC predicts vancomycin treatment failure in ther 2011; 66:2070–4.
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemo- 310. Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. Differences in potency and cate-
ther 2011; 66:2386–92. gorical agreement between colistin and polymyxin B when testing 15,377 clinical
289. Rybak MJ, Lomaestro BM, Rotschafer JC, et al. Vancomycin therapeutic strains collected worldwide. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2015; 83:379–81.
guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the infectious 311. Cometta A, Baumgartner JD, Lew D, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of
diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharma- imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infec-
cists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Clin Infect Dis 2009; tions in nonneutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38:1309–13.
49:325–7. 312. Garnacho-Montero J, Sa-Borges M, Sole-Violan J, et al. Optimal management
290. Aarts MA, Hancock JN, Heyland D, McLeod RS, Marshall JC. Empiric anti- therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia: an obser-
biotic therapy for suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic vational, multicenter study comparing monotherapy with combination antibiotic
review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: therapy. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:1888–95.
108–17. 313. Park SY, Park HJ, Moon SM, et al. Impact of adequate empirical combination
291. Zanetti G, Bally F, Greub G, et al. Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin for treat- therapy on mortality from bacteremic Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia.
ment of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a multicenter, BMC Infect Dis 2012; 12:308.
evaluator-blind, prospective, randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 314. Kumar A, Zarychanski R, Light B, et al. Early combination antibiotic therapy
2003; 47:3442–7. yields improved survival compared with monotherapy in septic shock: a propen-
292. Giamarellou H, Mandragos K, Bechrakis P, Pigas K, Bilalis D, Sfikakis P. Peflox- sity-matched analysis. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1773–85.
acin versus imipenem in the therapy of nosocomial lung infections of intensive 315. Paul M, Silbiger I, Grozinsky S, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta lactam anti-
care unit patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26(suppl B):117–27. biotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination
293. Jaccard C, Troillet N, Harbarth S, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of therapy for sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD003344.
imipenem-cilastatin and piperacillin-tazobactam in nosocomial pneumonia or 316. Kumar A, Safdar N, Kethireddy S, Chateau D. A survival benefit of combination
peritonitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42:2966–72. antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is
294. Planquette B, Timsit JF, Misset BY, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-as- contingent only on the risk of death: a meta-analytic/meta-regression study. Crit

sociated pneumonia. Predictive factors of treatment failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Care Med 2010; 38:1651–64.
Med 2013; 188:69–76. 317. Tamma PD, Cosgrove SE, Maragakis LL. Combination therapy for treatment of
295. Pena C, Gomez-Zorrilla S, Oriol I, et al. Impact of multidrug resistance infections with gram-negative bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev 2012; 25:450–70.
on Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia outcome: predic- 318. Morata L, Cobos-Trigueros N, Martinez JA, et al. Influence of multidrug resis-
tors of early and crude mortality. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; tance and appropriate empirical therapy on the 30-day mortality rate of Pseudo-
32:413–20. monas aeruginosa bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56:4833–7.
296. Luyt CE, Aubry A, Lu Q, et al. Imipenem, meropenem, or doripenem to treat 319. Safdar N, Handelsman J, Maki DG. Does combination antimicrobial therapy re-
patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antimi- duce mortality in gram-negative bacteraemia? A meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis
crob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:1372–80. 2004; 4:519–27.
297. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA Drug Safety Communication: 320. Hu Y, Li L, Li W, et al. Combination antibiotic therapy versus monotherapy for
FDA approves label changes for antibacterial Doribax (doripenem) describing in- Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia: a meta-analysis of retrospective and pro-
creased risk of death for ventilator patients with pneumonia. Available at: http:// spective studies. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013; 42:492–6.
www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm387971.htm. Accessed 5 January 2015. 321. Paul M, Leibovici L. Editorial commentary: combination therapy for Pseudomo-
298. Zilberberg MD, Chen J, Mody SH, Ramsey AM, Shorr AF. Imipenem resistance nas aeruginosa bacteremia: where do we stand? Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:217–20.
of Pseudomonas in pneumonia: a systematic literature review. BMC Pulm Med 322. Vardakas KZ, Tansarli GS, Bliziotis IA, Falagas ME. Beta-lactam plus aminogly-
2010; 10:45. coside or fluoroquinolone combination versus beta-lactam monotherapy for
299. Siempos II, Vardakas KZ, Manta KG, Falagas ME. Carbapenems for the treat- Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents
ment of immunocompetent adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Eur Re- 2013; 41:301–10.
spir J 2007; 29:548–60. 323. Pena C, Suarez C, Ocampo-Sosa A, et al. Effect of adequate single-drug vs com-
300. Mouton YJ, Beuscart C. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem in serious bac- bination antimicrobial therapy on mortality in Pseudomonas aeruginosa blood-
terial infections. Meropenem Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36 stream infections: a post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort. Clin Infect Dis
(suppl A):145–56. 2013; 57:208–16.
301. Norrby SR, Finch RG, Glauser M. Monotherapy in serious hospital-acquired in- 324. Balakrishnan I, Awad-El-Kariem FM, Aali A, et al. Temocillin use in England:
fections: a clinical trial of ceftazidime versus imipenem/cilastatin. European clinical and microbiological efficacies in infections caused by extended-spectrum
Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31:927–37. and/or derepressed AmpC beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Anti-
302. Carcas AJ, Garcia-Satue JL, Zapater P, Frias-Iniesta J. Tobramycin penetration microb Chemother 2011; 66:2628–31.
into epithelial lining fluid of patients with pneumonia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 325. Bassetti M, Righi E, Fasce R, et al. Efficacy of ertapenem in the treatment of early
1999; 65:245–50. ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-
303. Levy J, Baran D, Klastersky J. Comparative study of the antibacterial activity of producing organisms in an intensive care unit. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007;
amikacin and tobramycin during Pseudomonas pulmonary infection in patients 60:433–5.
with cystic fibrosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10:227–34. 326. Kaniga K, Flamm R, Tong SY, Lee M, Friedland I, Redman R. Worldwide expe-
304. Mombelli G, Coppens L, Thys JP, Klastersky J. Anti-Pseudomonas activity in rience with the use of doripenem against extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-
bronchial secretions of patients receiving amikacin or tobramycin as a continu- producing and ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: analysis of six phase
ous infusion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 19:72–5. 3 clinical studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54:2119–24.
305. Furtado GH, d’Azevedo PA, Santos AF, Gales AC, Pignatari AC, Medeiros EA. 327. Cheng WL, Hsueh PR, Lee CC, et al. Bacteremic pneumonia caused by extended-
Intravenous polymyxin B for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia caused spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae:
by multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Antimicrob Agents appropriateness of empirical treatment matters. J Microbiol Immunol Infect
2007; 30:315–9. 2014; 49:208–15.
306. Ouderkirk JP, Nord JA, Turett GS, Kislak JW. Polymyxin B nephrotoxicity and 328. Paterson DL, Ko WC, Von Gottberg A, et al. Antibiotic therapy for Klebsiella
efficacy against nosocomial infections caused by multiresistant gram-negative pneumoniae bacteremia: implications of production of extended-spectrum
bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:2659–62. beta-lactamases. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:31–7.
307. Rigatto MH, Ribeiro VB, Konzen D, Zavascki AP. Comparison of polymyxin B 329. Tsai HY, Chen YH, Tang HJ, et al. Carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam for
with other antimicrobials in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia the treatment of bacteremia caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-pro-
and tracheobronchitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter bau- ducing Proteus mirabilis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 80:222–6.
mannii. Infection 2013; 41:321–8. 330. Nguyen HM, Shier KL, Graber CJ. Determining a clinical framework for use of
308. Sobieszczyk ME, Furuya EY, Hay CM, et al. Combination therapy with polymyx- cefepime and beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors in the treatment of infec-
in B for the treatment of multidrug-resistant gram-negative respiratory tract in- tions caused by extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteria-
fections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54:566–9. ceae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69:871–80.
331. Aydemir H, Akduman D, Piskin N, et al. Colistin vs. the combination of 347. Medina J, Perez Protto S, Paciel D, Pontet J, Saldun P, Berro M. Antibiotic treat-
colistin and rifampicin for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter ment for the ventilator-associated pneumonia: 8 vs. 12 days randomized trial pre-
baumannii ventilator-associated pneumonia. Epidemiol Infect 2013; 141: liminary data. In: Proceedings of the 47th Interscience Conference on
1214–22. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2007:361.
332. Betrosian AP, Frantzeskaki F, Xanthaki A, Douzinas EE. Efficacy and safety of 348. Capellier G, Mockly H, Charpentier C, et al. Early-onset ventilator-associated
high-dose ampicillin/sulbactam vs. colistin as monotherapy for the treatment pneumonia in adults randomized clinical trial: comparison of 8 versus 15 days
of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii ventilator-associated pneumo- of antibiotic treatment. PLoS One 2012; 7:e41290.
nia. J Infect 2008; 56:432–6. 349. Alvarez-Lerma F, Alvarez B, Luque P, et al. Empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic
333. Betrosian AP, Frantzeskaki F, Xanthaki A, Georgiadis G. High-dose ampicillin- therapy of nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit: a prospective obser-
sulbactam as an alternative treatment of late-onset VAP from multidrug-resistant vational study. Crit Care 2006; 10:R78.
Acinetobacter baumannii. Scand J Infect Dis 2007; 39:38–43. 350. Eachempati SR, Hydo LJ, Shou J, Barie PS. Does de-escalation of antibiotic ther-
334. Durante-Mangoni E, Signoriello G, Andini R, et al. Colistin and rifampicin com- apy for ventilator-associated pneumonia affect the likelihood of recurrent pneu-
pared with colistin alone for the treatment of serious infections due to extensively monia or mortality in critically ill surgical patients? J Trauma 2009; 66:1343–8.
drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. 351. Kollef MH. Providing appropriate antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care
Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:349–58. unit: surveillance vs. de-escalation. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:903–5.
335. Wood GC, Hanes SD, Croce MA, Fabian TC, Boucher BA. Comparison of am- 352. Leone M, Bechis C, Baumstarck K, et al. De-escalation versus continuation of em-
picillin-sulbactam and imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of acinetobacter pirical antimicrobial treatment in severe sepsis: a multicenter non-blinded ran-
ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:1425–30. domized noninferiority trial. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40:1399–408.
336. Chuang YC, Cheng CY, Sheng WH, et al. Effectiveness of tigecycline-based ver- 353. Camargo LF. The “de-escalation concept” and antibiotic de-escalation: a missed
sus colistin- based therapy for treatment of pneumonia caused by multidrug- opportunity? Shock 2013; 39(suppl 1):29–31.
resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a critical setting: a matched cohort analysis. 354. Dellit TH, Chan JD, Skerrett SJ, Nathens AB. Development of a guideline for the
BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14:102. management of ventilator-associated pneumonia based on local microbiologic
337. Garnacho-Montero J, Ortiz-Leyba C, Jimenez-Jimenez FJ, et al. Treatment of findings and impact of the guideline on antimicrobial use practices. Infect Con-
multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii ventilator-associated pneumonia trol Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29:525–33.
(VAP) with intravenous colistin: a comparison with imipenem-susceptible 355. Hoffken G, Niederman MS. Nosocomial pneumonia: the importance of a de-
VAP. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:1111–8. escalating strategy for antibiotic treatment of pneumonia in the ICU. Chest

338. Ramasubban S, Majumdar A, Das PS. Safety and efficacy of polymyxin B in mul- 2002; 122:2183–96.
tidrug resistant gram-negative severe sepsis and septic shock. Indian J Crit Care 356. Kollef MH, Morrow LE, Niederman MS, et al. Clinical characteristics and treat-
Med 2008; 12:153–7. ment patterns among patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest
339. Simsek F, Gedik H, Yildirmak MT, et al. Colistin against colistin-only-susceptible 2006; 129:1210–8.
Acinetobacter baumannii-related infections: monotherapy or combination ther- 357. Lisboa T, Rello J. De-escalation in lower respiratory tract infections. Curr Opin
apy? Indian J Med Microbiol 2012; 30:448–52. Pulm Med 2006; 12:364–8.
340. Kalin G, Alp E, Akin A, Coskun R, Doganay M. Comparison of colistin and co- 358. Niederman MS, Soulountsi V. De-escalation therapy: is it valuable for the man-
listin/sulbactam for the treatment of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter bauman- agement of ventilator-associated pneumonia? Clin Chest Med 2011; 32:517–34.
nii ventilator-associated pneumonia. Infection 2014; 42:37–42. 359. Schuetz P, Briel M, Christ-Crain M, et al. Procalcitonin to guide initiation and
341. Choi HK, Kim YK, Kim HY, Uh Y. Inhaled colistin for treatment of pneumonia duration of antibiotic treatment in acute respiratory infections: an individual pa-
due to colistin-only-susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii. Yonsei Med J 2014; tient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55:651–62.
55:118–25. 360. Schuetz P, Muller B, Christ-Crain M, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue
342. Pugh R, Grant C, Cooke RP, Dempsey G. Short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;
antibiotic therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in critically ill adults. Co- 9:CD007498.
chrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 8:Cd007577. 361. Stolz D, Smyrnios N, Eggimann P, et al. Procalcitonin for reduced antibiotic ex-
343. Dimopoulos G, Poulakou G, Pneumatikos IA, Armaganidis A, Kollef MH, ?Mat- posure in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomised study. Eur Respir J
thaiou DK. Short- vs long-duration antibiotic regimens for ventilator-associated 2009; 34:1364–75.
pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2013; 144:1759–67. 362. Bouadma L, Luyt CE, Tubach F, et al. Use of procalcitonin to reduce patients’
344. Hedrick TL, McElearney ST, Smith RL, Evans HL, Pruett TL, Sawyer RG. Dura- exposure to antibiotics in intensive care units (PRORATA trial): a multicentre
tion of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by non- randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375:463–74.
fermentative gram-negative bacilli. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2007; 8:589–97. 363. Pontet J, Paciel D, Olivera W, Bentancourt S, Cancela M, Gervas J. Procalcitonin
345. Chastre J, Wolff M, Fagon JY, et al. Comparison of 8 vs 15 days of antibiotic ther- (PCT) guided antibiotic treatment in ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).
apy for ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a randomized trial. JAMA Multi-centre, clinical prospective, randomized-controlled study. Am J Respir
2003; 290:2588–98. Crit Care Med 2007; 175:A212.
346. Fekih Hassen M, Ayed S, Ben Sik Ali H, Gharbi R, Marghli S, Elatrous S. Dura- 364. Ibrahim EH, Ward S, Sherman G, Schaiff R, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Experience
tion of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia: comparison of 7 with a clinical guideline for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
and 10 days. A pilot study [in French]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2009; 28:16–23. Crit Care Med 2001; 29:1109–15.

Ats-Idsa 2016 Hap Vap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ats-Idsa 2016 Hap Vap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ats-Idsa 2016 Hap Vap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 1

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

1. We recommend that all hospitals regularly generate and dis-

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 3

Glycopeptidesa Antipseudomonal penicillinsb Fluoroquinolones

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 5

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 7

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Scope and Purpose

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 9

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 11

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 13

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 15

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 17

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 19

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 21

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 23

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 25

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 27

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 29

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 31

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 33

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016

Management of Adults With HAP/VAP • CID • 35

Downloaded from http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 2, 2016