Canadian Respiratory Journal (Jan 2023)

Construction and Validation of a Predictive Model for the Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Elderly ICU Patients

  • Shuhua Li,
  • Linping Shang,
  • Lirong Yuan,
  • Wei Li,
  • Hongyun Kang,
  • Wenting Zhao,
  • Xiaojuan Han,
  • Danxia Su

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7665184
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 2023

Abstract

Read online

Background. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is among the most important hospital-acquired infections in an intensive-care unit setting. However, clinical practice lacks effective theoretical tools for preventing VAP in the elderly. Aim. To describe the independent factors associated with VAP in elderly intensive-care unit (ICU) patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) and to construct a risk prediction model. Methods. A total of 1851 elderly patients with MV in ICUs from January 2015 to September 2019 were selected from 12 tertiary hospitals. Study subjects were divided into a model group (n = 1219) and a validation group (n = 632). Two groups of patients were divided into a VAP group and a non-VAP group and compared. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to explore influencing factors for VAP in elderly ICU patients with MV, establish a risk prediction model, and draw a nomogram. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test to evaluate the predictive effect of the model. Findings regarding the length of ICU stay, surgery, C-reactive protein (CRP), and the number of reintubations were independent risk factors for VAP in elderly ICU patients with MV. Predictive-model verification results showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of VAP risk after MV in the modeling and verification groups was 0.859 and 0.813 (P<0.001), respectively, while P values for the Hosmer–Lemeshow test in these two groups were 0.365 and 0.485, respectively. Conclusion. The model could effectively predict the occurrence of VAP in elderly patients with MV in ICUs. This study is a retrospective study, so it has not been registered as a clinical study.