AzTrials
AzTrials

Ventilator Associated PneumoniaNCT02363023

Study of Different Etiologic Diagnostic Methods in Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

An observational study of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia, run by Federal University of Uberlandia at 1 site in Brazil.

Terminated

Stopped early. The study ended before it was planned to and will not resume.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The study is designed to evaluate sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal aspirate in comparison with bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (gold standard), as methods for etiologic diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia and their impact in morbimortality. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for
Ventilator Associated Pneumonia
What is being tested?
Collect tracheal and pulmonary secretions
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
How many people
30 participants
Where
1 siteBrazil
Study dates
Jun 2015to Jun 2016
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: All patients older than 18 years admitted to the ICU of Hospital de Clínicas de Uberlândia with suspected VAP will be included in the project. from february 2015 to complete the total of 72 patients required, since provided that agree with the terms of informed consent.

Who may be able to join

  • Older than 18 and clinical suspicion of VAP;

Who cannot join

  • Age less than 18 years;
  • Introduction or modification of antibiotic therapy due to associated diagnosis in the first 3 days of the start of the protocol;
  • No agreement with informed consent or for any other reason, expose the desire to leave the protocol at any time.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Brazil1 site
  • Rodrigo Miquelanti Melo

    Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, 38405320

Other trials in Brazil

About this study

Official title: Prospective Comparative Study of Different Etiologic Diagnostic Methods in Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

The study is designed to evaluate sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal aspirate in comparison with bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (gold standard), as methods for etiologic diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia and their impact in morbimortality.

Read the detailed description

Ventilator associated pneumonia is defined as one that occurs 48-72h after tracheal intubation, is classified into early and late and is responsible for a mortality of 24-50% to almost 70% in some studies.

The clinical suspicion of ventilator associated pneumonia is based on the finding of new or progressive pulmonary opacity associated with two or more variables such as: fever, leukocytosis or leukopenia, and purulent pulmonary secretions.

Some studies show that the etiologic diagnosis reduces spectrum of antimicrobials and bacterial resistance, reducing hospital stay and time of mechanical ventilation, as well as treatment costs. The collection of material for quantitative culture ensures greater specificity however there is no standard method.

The investigator's hypothesis is that collection of material to confirm the etiologic diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia, held by bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage, define the etiology in a larger number of patients when compared to the endotracheal aspirate and non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage.

The primary goal is evaluate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of noninvasive methods (endotracheal aspirate and non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage) in comparison with invasive (bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage) regarding the collection of material for etiologic diagnosis.

The secondary objectives are determine the prevalence of ventilator associated pneumonia and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacteria isolated, helping to update empirical antibiotic therapy protocols.

This is a prospective comparative observational study on etiologic methods of diagnosis. All the patients, with clinical suspicion, will be submitted to collection of tracheal aspirate, bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage. These procedures are already incorporated in the daily practice of our intensive cara unit and are routinely performed for investigation of patients with compatible framework of ventilator associated pneumonia, as availability of bronchoscopist.

Whereas an analysis of variance will be performed to compare the three interventions, with a minimum difference between the treatment means, a power of 0.95 and a significance level of 0.05, with an estimation error of 0.1, will be required a total sample of 72 patients.There will be only one group of 72 patients, in which will be held in all the three samples of the study.

Being tested
Collect tracheal and pulmonary secretions
Keywords
Ventilator associated pneumonia, Bronchoalveolar lavage
Medical subject headings
Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Collect tracheal and pulmonary secretionsProcedure or surgery

    Collect tracheal and pulmonary secretions (endotracheal aspirate, bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage)

Study groups in NCT02363023
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
VAP suspectsCollect tracheal and pulmonary secretions. All patients (n: 72) will be submitted to endotracheal aspirate, bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage.
Receives: Procedure: Collect tracheal and pulmonary secretions

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy

    Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of noninvasive methods (endotracheal aspirate and non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage) in comparison with invasive method (bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage, considered gold standard).

    Sensitivity: number of true positive cultures obtained with each noninvasive method divided by the number of positive cultures obtained from bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage;

    Specificity: number of true negative cultures obtained with each noninvasive method divided by the number of negative cultures obtained from bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage;

    Accuracy: number of true positive plus true negative cultures obtained with each noninvasive method divided by the number of patients (72);

    Measured: 30 days

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Prevalence of ventilator associated pneumonia (cases / time period)

    Number of cases of ventilator associated pneumonia divided by the number of months. We hope to reach the number of 72 patients in up to 10 months.

    Measured: 10 months

  2. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacteria isolated

    All isolated bacteria will be submitted to tests for antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance pattern.

    Measured: 72-96 hours

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted13 Feb 2015 (estimated)
  2. Study startJun 2015
  3. Primary completionMay 2016
  4. Study completionJun 2016

Why it stopped: Lack of resources.

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
30 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02363023
Sponsor's protocol ID
VAP protocol
Status last verified
May 2018
First submitted
27 Jan 2015
Last updated
3 May 2018
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided: We are still collecting data.

Publications

  • American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Feb 15;171(4):388-416. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200405-644ST. No abstract available.

    PubMed 15699079
  • Kollef MH. What is ventilator-associated pneumonia and why is it important? Respir Care. 2005 Jun;50(6):714-21; discussion 721-4.

    PubMed 15913464
  • Tablan OC, Anderson LJ, Besser R, Bridges C, Hajjeh R; CDC; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preventing health-care--associated pneumonia, 2003: recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004 Mar 26;53(RR-3):1-36.

    PubMed 15048056
  • Cook DJ, Walter SD, Cook RJ, Griffith LE, Guyatt GH, Leasa D, Jaeschke RZ, Brun-Buisson C. Incidence of and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Sep 15;129(6):433-40. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-129-6-199809150-00002.

    PubMed 9735080
  • Safdar N, Dezfulian C, Collard HR, Saint S. Clinical and economic consequences of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2005 Oct;33(10):2184-93. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000181731.53912.d9.

    PubMed 16215368
  • Rea-Neto A, Youssef NC, Tuche F, Brunkhorst F, Ranieri VM, Reinhart K, Sakr Y. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care. 2008;12(2):R56. doi: 10.1186/cc6877. Epub 2008 Apr 21.

    PubMed 18426596
  • Bonten MJ, Bergmans DC, Stobberingh EE, van der Geest S, De Leeuw PW, van Tiel FH, Gaillard CA. Implementation of bronchoscopic techniques in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia to reduce antibiotic use. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997 Dec;156(6):1820-4. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.156.6.9610117.

    PubMed 9412561
  • Fagon JY, Chastre J, Wolff M, Gervais C, Parer-Aubas S, Stephan F, Similowski T, Mercat A, Diehl JL, Sollet JP, Tenaillon A. Invasive and noninvasive strategies for management of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Apr 18;132(8):621-30. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-8-200004180-00004.

    PubMed 10766680
  • Croce MA, Fabian TC, Schurr MJ, Boscarino R, Pritchard FE, Minard G, Patton JH Jr, Kudsk KA. Using bronchoalveolar lavage to distinguish nosocomial pneumonia from systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a prospective analysis. J Trauma. 1995 Dec;39(6):1134-9; discussion 1139-40. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199512000-00022.

    PubMed 7500408
  • Leo A, Galindo-Galindo J, Folch E, Guerrero A, Bosques F, Mercado R, Arroliga AC. Comparison of bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage vs blind lavage with a modified nasogastric tube in the etiologic diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Med Intensiva. 2008 Apr;32(3):115-20. doi: 10.1016/s0210-5691(08)70921-5.

    PubMed 18381016
  • Shorr AF, Sherner JH, Jackson WL, Kollef MH. Invasive approaches to the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2005 Jan;33(1):46-53. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000149852.32599.31.

    PubMed 15644647
  • Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A randomized trial of diagnostic techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2619-30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052904.

    PubMed 17182987
  • Fujitani S, Yu VL. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: focus on nonbronchoscopic techniques (nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage, including mini-BAL, blinded protected specimen brush, and blinded bronchial sampling) and endotracheal aspirates. J Intensive Care Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;21(1):17-21. doi: 10.1177/0885066605283094.

    PubMed 16698740
  • Meduri GU, Chastre J. The standardization of bronchoscopic techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest. 1992 Nov;102(5 Suppl 1):557S-564S. doi: 10.1378/chest.102.5_supplement_1.557s. No abstract available.

    PubMed 1424930
  • Baselski VS, el-Torky M, Coalson JJ, Griffin JP. The standardization of criteria for processing and interpreting laboratory specimens in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest. 1992 Nov;102(5 Suppl 1):571S-579S. doi: 10.1378/chest.102.5_supplement_1.571s. No abstract available.

    PubMed 1424932

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia, run by Federal University of Uberlandia at 1 site in Brazil.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Brazil. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study was stopped early (reason given: Lack of resources.). Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (time frame: 30 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02363023, which also lists 17 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 May 2018.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in