Efficacy of compliance with ventilator-associated pneumonia care bundle: A 24-month longitudinal study at Bach Mai Hospital, Vietnam.

Introduction: To decrease the risk of complications from ventilator-associated pneumonia, it is essential to implement preventative measures in all ICU patients. Since 2018, with the help of Japanese experts, we have applied a ventilator-associated pneumonia care bundle with 10 basic standards in patient care and monitoring. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the results of applying 10 solutions to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia over 24 months. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study with longitudinal follow-up for 24 months on 170 mechanically ventilated patients at the Center for Critical Care Medicine, Bach Mai Hospital. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2021), the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia is when pneumonia appears 48 h after intubation by confirmation by at least two doctors. Evaluate compliance with each solution in the care bundle through camera monitoring, medical records, and directly on patients daily. Results: The rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia is 12.9%, the frequency of occurrence is 16.54 of 1000 days. The compliance rate for complete compliance with a 10-item ventilator-associated pneumonia was only 1.8%, while the average value was 84.1%. Average values of compliance with each solution for hand hygiene, head elevation 30-45 degrees, oral hygiene, stopping sedation, breathing circuit management, cuff pressure management, hypoplastic suction, Spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) daily and assessed extubation, mobilization and early leaving bed, ulcer and thrombosis prevention were 96.9%, 97.3%, 99.4%, 81.5%, 99.9%, 99.9%, 86.3%, 83.5%, 49.3%, and 46.4%, respectively. The time to appear ventilator-associated pneumonia in the high compliance group was 46.7 ± 5.0 days, higher than in the low compliance group, 10.3 ± 0.7 days, p < 0.001. Conclusions: A 10-item ventilator-associated pneumonia care bundle has helped reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. To reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia and shorten ICU and hospital stays, it is essential to fully adhere to subglottic secretion suction, daily SBT, and early mobilization and leaving the bed.

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis in Vietnamese intensive care units: a multicentre, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Scores in predicting mortality among intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis in a low-income and middle-income country. DESIGN: A multicentre, cross-sectional study. SETTING: A total of 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam. PARTICIPANTS: We included all patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted to ICUs for sepsis and who were still in ICUs from 00:00 to 23:59 of the specified study days (ie, 9 January, 3 April, 3 July and 9 October of the year 2019). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hospital all-cause mortality (hospital mortality). We also defined the secondary outcome as all-cause deaths in the ICU (ICU mortality). RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in hospitals, and 33.3% died in ICUs. SOFA Score (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC): 0.688 (95% CI 0.618 to 0.758); cut-off value≥7.5; PAUROC<0.001) and APACHE II Score (AUROC: 0.689 (95% CI 0.622 to 0.756); cut-off value ≥20.5; PAUROC<0.001) both had a poor discriminatory ability for predicting hospital mortality. However, the discriminatory ability for predicting ICU mortality of SOFA (AUROC: 0.713 (95% CI 0.643 to 0.783); cut-off value≥9.5; PAUROC<0.001) was fair and was better than that of APACHE II Score (AUROC: 0.672 (95% CI 0.603 to 0.742); cut-off value≥18.5; PAUROC<0.001). A SOFA Score≥8 (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.717; 95% CI 1.371 to 5.382) and an APACHE II Score≥21 (AOR: 2.668; 95% CI 1.338 to 5.321) were independently associated with an increased risk of hospital mortality. Additionally, a SOFA Score≥10 (AOR: 2.194; 95% CI 1.017 to 4.735) was an independent predictor of ICU mortality, in contrast to an APACHE II Score≥19, for which this role did not. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, SOFA and APACHE II Scores were worthwhile in predicting mortality among ICU patients with sepsis. However, due to better discrimination for predicting ICU mortality, the SOFA Score was preferable to the APACHE II Score in predicting mortality.Clinical trials registry - India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.

Predictive validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for the mortality in patients with sepsis in Vietnamese intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: The simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam. METHODS: We did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models. RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; PAUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; PAUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671). CONCLUSION: In our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registry-India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.

Factors relating to mortality in septic patients in Vietnamese intensive care units from a subgroup analysis of MOSAICS II study.

Sepsis is the most common cause of in-hospital deaths, especially from low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate the mortality rate and associated factors from sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) in an LMIC. We did a multicenter cross-sectional study of septic patients presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the 4 days representing the different seasons of 2019. Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in hospital and 33.3% died in ICU. ICUs with accredited training programs (odds ratio, OR: 0.309; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.122-0.783) and completion of the 3-h sepsis bundle (OR: 0.294; 95% CI 0.083-1.048) were associated with decreased hospital mortality. ICUs with intensivist-to-patient ratio of 1:6 to 8 (OR: 4.533; 95% CI 1.621-12.677), mechanical ventilation (OR: 3.890; 95% CI 1.445-10.474) and renal replacement therapy (OR: 2.816; 95% CI 1.318-6.016) were associated with increased ICU mortality, in contrast to non-surgical source control (OR: 0.292; 95% CI 0.126-0.678) which was associated with decreased ICU mortality. Improvements are needed in the management of sepsis in Vietnam such as increasing resources in critical care settings, making accredited training programs more available, improving compliance with sepsis bundles of care, and treating underlying illness and shock optimally in septic patients.