Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Questions with inconclusive answers

S. Ewig
European Respiratory Journal 2002 20: 1064-1065; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.04202002
S. Ewig
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor:

I read with great interest the study by Prats et al. 1 entitled “Effects of antibiotics on protected specimen brush sampling in ventilator-associated pneumonia” recently published in the European Respiratory Journal. The study demonstrated that the effect of antimicrobial treatment on the diagnostic yield of the bronchoscopically retrieved protected specimen brush (PSB) must be identified according to the microorganism involved. Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae seemed particularly vulnerable to antimicrobial treatment, whereas Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumanii seemed more resistant. But what do these findings implicate in terms of the usefulness of PSB in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)? Are we to withhold antimicrobial treatment prior to diagnostic evaluation? Should we rely more widely on PSB after having corrected the apparent biases in the literature evaluating the diagnostic yield of bronchoscopic sampling?

The issue of antimicrobial pretreatment should be honestly discussed in a realistic clinical scenario. Although it is clearly inadequate to initiate antimicrobial treatment prior to diagnostic sampling when the corresponding facilities are established, these facilities may not be available under defined circumstances (e.g. during night hours and weekends). Moreover, most regimens of antimicrobial pretreatment are present because of earlier septic episodes unrelated to suspected VAP. The indication for these antimicrobial treatment courses may be debatable in some cases but will be a matter of fact in most instances. The implications of these two types of antimicrobial treatment are completely different: although antimicrobial pretreatment initiated for suspected VAP clearly reduces the diagnostic yield, particularly in pathogens involved in early onset pneumonia, it does not when initiated for other reasons 2, 3. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that in patients developing VAP during antimicrobial treatment, the diagnostic yield may even be increased since underlying pathogens would not have caused pneumonia if these had been appropriately covered by the current antimicrobial regimen.

With these considerations in mind, any diagnostic sampling will be most rewarding in the presence of a high amount of resistant pathogens not covered by any given initial antimicrobial treatment policy. This conclusion is in line with the fact that an institution reporting a rate of 59% resistant microorganisms in patients with suspected VAP has continuously found the best operative figures of bronchoscopic sampling 4. However, from these associations we should learn that bronchoscopic sampling should not be continuously implemented in the routine practice of any intensive care unit (ICU). The challenge of reducing overall resistance rates by reducing antimicrobial selection pressure cannot be resolved by withholding antimicrobial treatment and implementing invasive diagnostic measures in order to establish the presence of VAP. It should be remembered that antimicrobial pretreatment is not the only confounder when applying diagnostic techniques based on quantitative cultures 5, 6. Instead, the preferred strategy when facing this challenge is the definition and implementation of: 1) an appropriate policy of empiric initial antimicrobial treatment; 2) an infection control programme, including strict measures in hospital environments with excess resistance rates; and 3) a critical judgment, including clinical and microbiological data, when estimating the probability of pneumonia in individual patients. Additional clues emerge from studies evaluating strategies to reduce selection pressure by short-course antimicrobial treatment regimen in patients at low risk of mortality 7.

Therefore, in my view, reopening the debate about the usefulness of bronchoscopically sampled protected specimen brush (and bronchoalveolar lavage) in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia would mean dealing with questions that have been shown to have inconclusive answers.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Prats E, Dorca J, Pujol M, et al. Effects of antibiotics on protected specimen brush sampling in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2002;19:944–951.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Timsit JF, Misset B, Renaud B, Goldstein FW, Carlet J. Effect of previous antimicrobial therapy on the accuracy of the main procedures used to diagnose nosocomial pneumonia in patients who are using ventilation. Chest 1995;108:1036–1040.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      Souweine B, Veber B, Bedos JP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of protected specimen brush and bronchoalveolar lavage in nosocomial pneumonia: impact of previous antimicrobial treatments. Crit Care Med 1998;26:236–244.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      Trouillet JL, Chastre J, Vuagnat A, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by potentially drug-resistant bacteria. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:531–539.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Ewig S, Torres A. Flexible bronchoscopy in nosocomial pneumonia. Clin Chest Med 2001;22:263–279.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Torres A, Carlet J. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. European Task Force on ventilator-associated pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2001;17:1034–1045.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      Singh N, Rogers P, Atwood CW, Wagener MM, Yu VL. Short-course empiric antibiotic therapy for patients with pulmonary infiltrates in the intensive care unit. A proposed solution for indiscriminate antibiotic prescription. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:505–511.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 20 Issue 4 Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Questions with inconclusive answers
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Questions with inconclusive answers
    S. Ewig
    European Respiratory Journal Oct 2002, 20 (4) 1064-1065; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.04202002

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Questions with inconclusive answers
    S. Ewig
    European Respiratory Journal Oct 2002, 20 (4) 1064-1065; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.04202002
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Ethical obligations for supporting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
    • Is high-dose glucocorticoid beneficial in COVID-19? Response to Correspondence
    • BALF lymphocytosis in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • CME
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • ERS author centre

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society