Evaluation of the effects of applying the ventricular care bundle (VCB) method for reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the intensive care unit of a general Chinese tertiary hospital

Ann Palliat Med. 2020 Aug 3:apm-20-289. doi: 10.21037/apm-20-289. Online ahead of print.


BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a severe complication that occurs within patients who must use ventilators in the intensive care unit (ICU). Ventilator care bundles (VCB) have been applied across many developed regions and have produced positive results in controlling VAP. In this study, we report on the implementation and effects of using VCBs to manage VAP in a general tertiary hospital in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China.

METHODS: A targeted surveillance method was used to survey all the patients (n=4,716) in the ICU from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2019. Patients from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018, and June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, were respectively divided into 2 groups: the control group (2,029 patients) and intervention group (2,687 patients). These dates were selected because VCB was implemented from June 1, 2018, in our institution. The variables that were associated with VCB and observed were the head-of-bed elevation, oral care, maintenance of the pressure for the cuff of the endotracheal tube, aspiration of subglottic secretion, daily sedation vacation protocol, daily extubation assessment results, and hand hygiene. After collecting the data, the compliance of VCB, ventilator use ratio, and the incidence rate of VAP in these 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS: We observed that compliance with all of the intervention measures for VCB improved results in the intervention group compared to the control. Furthermore, the compliance rate of hand hygiene increased from 71.99% to 91.97%, and the head-of-bed elevation of 30°-45° increased from 62.02% to 85.96%. All differences between these two groups were statistically significant, according to the χ 2 -test. The ventilator use ratio was statistically and significantly lower in the intervention group (34.86%) compared to the control group (40.29%) (χ 2 =95.513, P<0.001). The incidence rate of VAP was statistically and significantly lower in the intervention group (13.70‰) compared to the control group (18.85‰) (χ 2 =5.471, P=0.019).

CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that VCB prevents VAP. Therefore, personnel training, clinical supervision, and surveillance feedback could promote a reduction in intervention measures.

PMID:32787352 | DOI:10.21037/apm-20-289