No sampling technique was superior for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Deanna Blisard,Samuel A Tisherman,Eric B Milbrandt

doi:10.1186/cc3491

Abstract

1 Clinical Fellow, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA 3 Associate Professor, Departments of Surgery and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Highlights

The diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has proven to be a challenging task
The use of a blind protected brush is equivalent to bronchoscope-directed techniques in determining the microbiology of VAP, while endotracheal aspirates are contaminated with oropharyngeal flora and of little value
Intervention: Four samplings were performed on each patient in the following order: blind protected brush (BPB), bronchoscopic-directed protected brush (BDPB), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and endotracheal aspirates (ETA)

Summary

Expanded Abstract

Wood AY, Davit AJ 2nd, Ciraulo DL, Arp NW, Richart CM, Maxwell RA, Barker DE: A prospective assessment of diagnostic efficacy of blind protective bronchial brushings compared to bronchoscope-assisted lavage, bronchoscopedirected brushings, and blind endotracheal aspirates in ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Trauma 2003, 55:825834.1

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion