This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul Marik, MD
St Vincent Hospital Worcester, Mass

Joseph Varon, MD
M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Houston, Tex

JAMA. 1997;278(1):24-25.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—We read with interest the study by Dr Bregeon and colleagues¹ regarding ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). From their data, the authors conclude that "patient outcome is the same if VAP has been diagnosed by protected specimen brush (PSB) or by another sampling method." We feel this conclusion may be misleading.

The subject of VAP is complex and still very controversial. Ventilator-associated pneumonia is common in patients receiving ventilory support; however, the impact of this complication on patient outcome is unclear. It is now generally accepted that the use of clinical diagnostic criteria alone will grossly overdiagnose VAP.² Similarly, the specificity of tracheal aspirates is very low. Furthermore, it is important to make a microbiological diagnosis, since empiric treatment provides inadequate antimicrobial coverage for as many as 40% of patients subsequently proven to have VAP.² Although there is no true criterion standard to diagnose VAP at . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?