Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Low- and Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries: The Role of Ventilator Bundle, Ventilation Practices, and Health Care Staffing
Primary result · VAP developmentResult — go to the resultAdjusted odds ratio 2.11 95% CI 1.37–3.24Authors' conclusion
Our results show that patients in LMICs have a 2-fold higher risk of VAP, independent of bundle adherence.
Study context
- Population
- Mechanically ventilated patients at risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) from 11 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and 5 high-income countries (HICs)
- Participants
- 2,253 participants
- Comparison
- LMICs vs HICs
- LMICsn = 1,755
- HICsn = 498reference
- Primary endpoint
- VAP development
Methodological detailsmultivariable analysis
- Multivariable analysis
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted odds ratio
2.11
95% CI 1.37–3.24
LMICs vs HICs
aOR 2.11 (95% CI 1.37–3.24)
Further findings
Ventilator bundle adherence and VAP
- Ventilator bundle adherence not significantly associated with VAP
Total duration of ventilation and VAP
- Increased total duration of ventilation, aOR
- 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05)
Nursing staffing ratio and VAP
- Higher nursing staffing ratio, aOR
- 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.98)
Physician staffing ratio and VAP
- Higher physician staffing ratio, aOR
- 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.87)
Original publication
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Low- and Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries: The Role of Ventilator Bundle, Ventilation Practices, and Health Care Staffing. Chest. Published 11 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →