Patients
During the study period, 5667 patients were admitted to the ICU. Of the 69 adults with MDR-PA isolated in respiratory samples, 31 were identified as having pneumonia (21 VAP) and were compared with the remaining 38 patients (16 of whom had tracheobronchitis), who served as the control group without pneumonia. Bacteraemia was present in only 8 (25.8%) HAP/VAP patients. However, the 30-day mortality rates for HAP, VAP, colonisation and VAT were 90% (9/10), 57.1% (12/21), 22.7% (5/22) and 12.5% (2/16), respectively. Among these HAP/VAP patients, 7 (22.5%) had at least one previous MDR-PA infection and one-third (10, 32.3%) had previous PA colonisation. No differences were observed in the median Charlson scores between the pneumonia and non-pneumonia cohorts: 3 (IQR: 1 to 4) vs. 2 (IQR: 1 to 3), p = 0.5.
Patients with MDR-PA HAP/VAP were predominantly male (20; 64.5%), with a median age of 60 years (IQR: 48 to 68), a median APACHE-II at admission of 24 (IQR: 17 to 29) and a median ICU stay of 18 days (IQR: 1 to 41). There was no difference in ΔSOFA between groups: 0 (median, IQR: −1 to 4) in HAP/VAP vs. 0 (median, IQR: −2 to 2) in controls (p = 0.16). Twenty-one were immunosuppressed (67.7%), of whom 11 (35.5%) were solid organ transplant patients and 7 (22.6%) had an active malignancy. Table 1 shows the patients’ characteristics and compares controls vs. patients with HAP/VAP.
Table 1 Demographic data and risk factors in patients with multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDR-PA) ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). Univariate analysis between the pneumonia group (HAP/VAP) and the control group (respiratory colonisation and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis, VAT)
None of the ten HAP patients had ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. Their primary diagnoses were respiratory failure in six, (respiratory) septic shock in three and urinary sepsis in one. Seven were immunocompromised (three solid organ transplant, two with active malignancy and two neutropaenic). Online Resource 3 compares the causes of immunosuppression between HAP, VAP and controls.
MDR-PA HAP/VAP was significantly associated (p < 0.05) with development of organ injury: shock ensued in 20 (64.5%), moderate-severe hypoxaemia also in 20 (64.5%), AKI in 17 (54.8%) and ARDS in 6 (19.4%). HAP was more severe, presenting with as many as 8 patients (80%) presenting at least one organ dysfunction, compared with almost 60% of VAP patients. See Table 2 for a detailed comparison of outcomes and complications between HAP, VAP, VAT and colonisation. The time from culture to organ injury development was very short; injury was usually present at onset and most injuries developed within 48 h (Fig. 1).
Table 2 Outcomes in patients with MDR-PA VAP, HAP and VAT compared to controls
Mortality
In total, 28 out of 69 patients died (40.6%) and the overall 30-day mortality was 37.7% (26/69). HAP/VAP crude and 30-day mortality were the same, rising to 67.7% (21/31). The crude mortality of the control group was 18.4% (7/38) and the 30-day mortality was 13.2% (7/38). The estimated attributable 30-day ICU mortality for HAP/VAP was 54.5% (67.7% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.01). The median time to death was significantly shorter in the HAP/VAP group: 4 days [IQR: 3 to 8] vs. 17 days [IQR: 9 to 64] in the controls (p < 0.01). Within 8 days of infection, 85.7% (18/21) of deaths in the HAP/VAP group had already ensued and all deaths occurred by day 14. The comparison of time-to-ICU-mortality between HAP/VAP and controls is shown in Fig. 2. Online Resources 1 and 2 show the patients’ characteristics and compare them between survivors and non-survivors.
Other outcomes
Only ten patients with HAP/VAP were alive at the time of ICU discharge. Although the difference did not reach statistical significance, HAP/VAP survivors had triple the post-culture duration of mechanical ventilation compared to control survivors, 20.5 days [median, IQR: 5 to 46] vs. 7.5 days [median, IQR: 3 to 22], p = 0.13, and double the post-culture ICU stay, 27 days [median, IQR: 13 to 55] vs. 15 days [median, IQR: 10 to 33], p = 0.31 (see Table 2 for detailed outcomes in each group).
Predictors of ICU 30-day mortality
A Cox proportional regression model with the enter method was performed in all patients, using SOFA at culture, immunosuppression, VAT, pneumonia, shock and inadequate initial antibiotic therapy (IIAT) as independent variables. The model identified only MDR-PA pneumonia (HAP + VAP) as independently associated with ICU mortality, with an aHR of death of 5.92 (95% CI 1.19–29.57). See Table 3.
Table 3 Cox proportional hazards model for ICU mortality in patients with MDR-PA pneumonia (HAP + VAP, n = 31) and controls (respiratory colonisation + VAT, n = 38), sample total n = 69
Antibiotic exposure and susceptibility
Meropenem showed poor overall activity (MIC[50/90] 16/32 mg/L), with 47.0% having an MIC breakpoint >8 mg/L. Only 7 patients (22.6%) with HAP/VAP had prior exposure (during the prior 30 days) to carbapenems. The vast majority of isolates (85.1%) were susceptible only to amikacin and colistin, while 3 (6.4%) were XDR (susceptible only to colistin). Online Resource 4 shows the overall susceptibility of P. aeruginosa from ICU respiratory samples. Resistance to beta-lactams (third-generation cephalosporins and piperacillin–tazobactam) ranged from 44.1% to 45.3%. Indeed, differences between meropenem and anti-pseudomonal cephalosporins were lower than 3%. There were no differences in susceptibility between controls and HAP/VAP (see Online Resource 2).
Prior systemic exposure to amikacin and colistin was present in 1 (3.2%) and 6 (19.4%) patients, respectively, although all VAP patients had prior exposure to SDD with tobramycin and colistin. In addition, 13 (41.9%) and 5 (16.1%) patients with HAP/VAP had prior exposure to beta-lactams and quinolones, respectively.
As a consequence, 24 (77.4%) HAP/VAP episodes received inappropriate empirical therapy, which was not associated with mortality. The seven subjects who received a susceptible agent were treated with amikacin (five patients) and IV colistin (two patients). Interestingly, these patients with adequate empirical therapy were more ill at the time of culture than those with inappropriate empirical therapy (median SOFA score of 11 [IQR: 8 to 15] vs. 5 [IQR: 3 to 9], p < 0.05). Indeed, combination therapy was prescribed in 7/15 patients with SOFA score >8 and in 3/16 patients with SOFA score in the range 0–8. Moreover, no differences in severity scores at ICU admission or in ΔSOFA were seen between the groups.
Thirteen (41.9%) patients received empirical therapy with a beta-lactam, 11 (35.5%) with a carbapenem, 5 (16.1%) with amikacin and 2 (6.5%) with IV colistin. Quinolones were not used. Survival was 1 in 11 patients (9.1%) with carbapenems as empirical therapy and 9 in 20 patients (45%) without carbapenems (p < 0.05). Although empirical combination therapy was associated with less IIAT than monotherapy (16.7% vs. 88.3%, p < 0.01), there were no differences in survival (30% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.8). Details of antibiotic use are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4 Details of antibiotic therapy administered in patients with MDR-PA pneumonia (HAP/VAP)