Next Article in Journal
Circulation of a Unique Klebsiella pneumoniae Clone, ST147 NDM-1/OXA-48, in Two Diverse Hospitals in Calabria (Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Amphibian AMPs Against Oxidative Stress and Related Diseases
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model for the Prediction of Bloodstream Infections in Patients with Hematological Malignancies and Febrile Neutropenia
 
 
antibiotics-logo
Article Menu

Article Menu

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Associated with Mortality in Nosocomial Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: An ENIRRI Analysis

by
Luis Felipe Reyes
1,2,3,
Antoni Torres
4,5,
Juan Olivella-Gomez
1,
Elsa D. Ibáñez-Prada
1,2,
Saad Nseir
6,7,
Otavio T. Ranzani
8,9,
Pedro Povoa
10,11,12,
Emilio Diaz
13,14,
Marcus J. Schultz
15,16,
Alejandro H. Rodríguez
17,
Cristian C. Serrano-Mayorga
1,2,18,
Gennaro De Pascale
19,
Paolo Navalesi
20,21,
Szymon Skoczynski
22,
Mariano Esperatti
23,
Luis Miguel Coelho
10,12,
Andrea Cortegiani
24,
Stefano Aliberti
25,26,27,
Anselmo Caricato
19,
Helmut J. F. Salzer
28,29,30,
Adrian Ceccato
4,
Rok Civljak
31,
Paolo Maurizio Soave
19,
Charles-Edouard Luyt
32,
Pervin Korkmaz Ekren
33,
Fernando Rios
34,
Joan Ramon Masclans
35,
Judith Marin
36,
Silvia Iglesias-Moles
37,
Stefano Nava
38,39,
Davide Chiumello
40,
Lieuwe D. Bos
15,
Antonio Artigas
41,
Filipe Froes
42,
David Grimaldi
43,
Mauro Panigada
44,
Fabio Silvio Taccone
43,
Massimo Antonelli
19 and
Ignacio Martin-Loeches
45,*,† on behalf of the European Network for ICU-Related Respiratory Infections (ENIRRIs) European Respiratory Society-Clinical Research Collaboration Investigators
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Unisabana Center for Translational Science, School of Medicine, Universidad de La Sabana, Chia 250001, Colombia
2
Clinica Universidad de La Sabana, Chia 140013, Colombia
3
Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX37LF, UK
4
School of Medicine, University of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
5
Instititut d´investigacions Biomédiques August Pi i Sunyer, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
6
Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital R. Salengro, CHU de Lille, 59037 Lille, France
7
Université de Lille, CNRS, UMR 8576-UGSF-Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle, 59000 Lille, France
8
Barcelona Institute for Global Health, ISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
9
Pulmonary Division, Heart Institute (InCor), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 05508-220, Brazil
10
NOVA Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal
11
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Research Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, OUH Odense University Hospital, 5230 Odense, Denmark
12
Intensive Care Unit 4, Department of Intensive Care, Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, CHLO, 1449-005 Lisbon, Portugal
13
School of Medicine, Corporació Sanitaria Parc Tauli, 08208 Sabadell, Spain
14
Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193 Barcelona, Spain
15
Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
16
Department of Intensive Care, Laboratory for Experimental Intensive Care & Anesthesiology (LEICA), 1105 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
17
Hospital Joan XXIII de Tarragona, 43003 Tarragona, Spain
18
Engineering School, Universidad de La Sabana, Chia 111321, Colombia
19
Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
20
School of Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
21
Sant’Andrea (ASL VC), 13100 Vercelli, Italy
22
Department of Lung Diseases and Tuberculosis, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, 41-803 Katowice, Poland
23
Hospital Privado de Comunidad, Escuela Superior de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Mar del Plata 7600, Argentina
24
Department of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy
25
School of Medicine, Medical University of Silesia, 41-902 Katowise, Poland
26
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Milan, Italy
27
Respiratory Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Milan, Italy
28
Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine 4—Pneumology, Kepler University Hospital, 4020 Linz, Austria
29
Medical Faculty, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 4040 Linz, Austria
30
Ignaz Semmelweis Institute, Interuniversity Institute for Infection Research, 1090 Vienna, Austria
31
“Dr Fran Mihaljevic” University Hospital for Infectious Diseases, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
32
Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Sorbonne Université, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtriere, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013 Paris, France
33
Medical Faculty, Ege University, 35100 Izmir, Turkey
34
Hospital Nacional Alejandro Posadas, El Palomar 1704, Argentina
35
Critical Care Department, Hospital del Mar, GREPAC, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, MELIS, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
36
Hospital del Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
37
Hospital Arnau de Vilanova de Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
38
Universita Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna Pneumologia e Terapia Intensiva Respiratoria, IRCCS Ospedale di Sant’Orsola, 40138 Bologna, Italy
39
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
40
ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20142 Milan, Italy
41
Ntensive Care Medicine Department, Corporacion Sanitaria Universitaria Parc Tauli, Institut d’Investigació I Innovació Parc Tauli I3PT, CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08208 Sabadell, Spain
42
Chest Department, Hospital Pulido Valente, CHULN, 1769-001 Lisbon, Portugal
43
Hopital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium
44
Anesthesia and Critical Care, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20100 Milan, Italy
45
St James’s University Hospital, Trinity College, D08 NHY1 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Collaborators of the ENIRRI is provided in the Acknowledgments.
Antibiotics 2025, 14(2), 127; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14020127
Submission received: 26 November 2024 / Revised: 20 December 2024 / Accepted: 7 January 2025 / Published: 26 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nosocomial Infections and Complications in ICU Settings)

Abstract

:
Background: Nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (nLRTIs) are associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes and significant healthcare costs. nLRTIs include hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and other ICU-acquired pneumonia phenotypes. While risk factors for mortality in these infections are critical to guide preventive strategies, it remains unclear whether they vary based on their requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) at any point during the hospitalization. Objectives: This study aims to identify risk factors associated with short- and long-term mortality in patients with nLRTIs, considering differences between those requiring IMV and those who do not. Methods: This multinational prospective cohort study included ICU-admitted patients diagnosed with nLRTI from 28 hospitals across 13 countries in Europe and South America between May 2016 and August 2019. Patients were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and clinical data were collected from medical records. A random forest classifier determined the most optimal clustering strategy when comparing pneumonia site acquisition [ward or intensive care unit (ICU)] versus intensive mechanical ventilation (IMV) necessity at any point during hospitalization to enhance the accuracy and generalizability of the regression models. Results: A total of 1060 patients were included. The random forest classifier identified that the most efficient clustering strategy was based on ventilation necessity. In total, 76.4% of patients [810/1060] received IMV at some point during the hospitalization. Diabetes mellitus was identified to be associated with 28-day mortality in the non-IMV group (OR [IQR]: 2.96 [1.28–6.80], p = 0.01). The 90-day mortality-associated factor was MDRP infection (1.98 [1.13–3.44], p = 0.01). For ventilated patients, chronic liver disease was associated with 28-day mortality (2.38 [1.06–5.31] p = 0.03), with no variable showing statistical and clinical significance at 90 days. Conclusions: The risk factors associated with 28-day mortality differ from those linked to 90-day mortality. Additionally, these factors vary between patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and those in the non-invasive ventilation group. This underscores the necessity of tailoring therapeutic objectives and preventive strategies with a personalized approach.

1. Introduction

Nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (nLRTI), encompasses hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia that requires ventilation (VHAP), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated tracheitis (VAT), and intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia that does not require ventilation (ICU-AP) [1]. HAP and VAP are two conditions in the latest international clinical guidelines [2,3]. For instance, HAP is often a less severe disease; however, up to 50% of patients can develop serious complications such as acute respiratory failure or even sepsis and septic shock that require management at the intensive care unit (ICU) [2,4]. On the other hand, up to 90% of pneumonia episodes in the ICU occur in patients undergoing (IMV), making this complication of ventilation a significant concern for clinicians [5,6]. Overall, patients who develop nosocomial pneumonia and require treatment in the ICU are at increased risk of mortality and additional burden on hospital stays and healthcare costs per patient, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 USD [7].
Identifying risk factors to enhance patients’ clinical outcomes has become a priority [8]. Treatment approaches for nLRTIs typically involve broad-spectrum antibiotics targeting common pathogens such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella spp., Escherichia coli, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and resistant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as described in the first analysis of this ENIRRI cohort [1]. Therapeutic empirical approaches include broad-spectrum antibiotics targeting prevalent pathogens depending on the local epidemiology; however, the increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDRP) poses significant challenges for effective therapy. Resistance mechanisms, including β-lactamase production, efflux pumps, and porin channel mutations, contribute to treatment failure and necessitate ongoing evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy [2,8,9,10]. This underscores the need for targeted empirical therapy based on local resistance patterns and pathogen sensitivity profiles. Novel antibiotics, such as β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations and advanced carbapenems, show promise in overcoming resistance. However, it remains uncertain whether mortality risk factors differ between different phenotypes or subtypes of nLRTI such as those who are receiving IMV and those who are not.
Given the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the optimal method for grouping patients with nLRTIs and identifying factors associated with worse clinical outcomes, we proposed this large multinational study, the ENIRRI. Our study aims to determine the most effective way to categorize patients with nLRTIs and to evaluate the risk factors associated with mortality among these groups.

2. Results

A total of 1060 patients admitted to the ICU were included in the study, with the majority receiving IMV (76.4% [810/1060]) (Figure 1). Most of the patients enrolled were male, 72.5% (769/1060), with a mean age of 64 years across the entire cohort. The Random Forest classifier model found that the most optimal way of categorizing patients was into non-IMV and IMV groups, achieving an AUC ROC of 0.70 ± 0.02. The AUC graph and variables included alongside their feature importance can be found in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S2). In contrast, classifying patients based on whether their condition was acquired in the ward or the ICU resulted in a lower performance, with an AUC ROC of 0.68 ± 0.03 (Figure S3).
The cohort was then divided into those not under invasive mechanical ventilation (non-IMV) (250/1060) and those under invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (810/1060). Non-IMV patients received various forms of respiratory support, distributed as follows: 72.4% (181/250) received supplementary oxygen, 13.6% (34/250) were managed with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and 14% (35/250) were treated with a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Additionally, non-IMV patients also had a higher median [IQR] age (non-IMV: 66 [57–75] vs. IMV: 63 [49–73], p = 0.003) and had more comorbid conditions. The most frequent past medical condition for both non-IMV and IMV patients was a history of immunocompromise (non-IMV: 37.6% [94/250] vs. IMV: 21.0% [170/810], p < 0.001), chronic renal failure (non-IMV: 14.8% [37/250] vs. IMV: 10.2% [83/810], p = 0.05), and chronic heart disease (non-IMV: 30.8% [77/250] vs. IMV: 25.8% [209/810], p = 0.12). Furthermore, IMV patients presented more severe disease at nLRTI diagnosis based on median [IQR] SAPS II (non-IMV: 41 [30–54] vs. IMV: 48 [38–59], p < 0.001) and SOFA score (non-IMV: 6 [4–9] vs. IMV: 8 [5–10], p < 0.001). All the demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Regarding nLRTI etiology, non-IMV patients developed MRSA infections more frequently (non-IMV: 8.4% [21/250] vs. IMV: 4.2% [34/810], p < 0.001), while IMV patients were more frequently infected by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (non-IMV: 6.4% [16/250] vs. IMV: 17.0% [138/810], p = 0.01). Also, IMV patients were infected in a higher percentage by MDR pathogens (non-IMV: 18.0% [45/250] vs. IMV: 26.8% [217/810], p = 0.01). Finally, ventilated patients had worse clinical outcomes based on the median [IQR] ICU length of stay (LOS) (non-IMV: 14 [7–25] vs. IMV: 22 [13–37], p < 0.001) and hospital LOS (non-IMV: 36 [23–61] vs. IMV: 39 [22–65], p = 0.38) as well as mortality at 28 days (non-IMV: 14.4% [36/250] vs. IMV: 20.6% [167/810], p = 0.03), and mortality at 90 days (non-IMV: 30.4% [76/250] vs. IMV: 34.9% [283/810], p = 0.19) (Table 1).

2.1. Mortality Analysis in the Whole Cohort

Logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors associated with 28 d and 90 d mortality within the whole cohort presented in Table S2 and Table S3, respectively. For both time points, a higher SAPS II score was an independent risk factor (28 d: 1.04 [1.03–1.05], p < 0.001; 90 d: 1.03 [1.02–1.04], p < 0.001). Notably, the need for IMV was only related to mortality at 28 days (28 d: 1.53 [1.01–2.32], p = 0.04; 90 d: 1.26 [0.91–1.75], p < 0.001). Finally, age was analyzed as a continuous variable, exposing a statistically significant relationship with mortality at both time points (28 d: 1.02 [1.00–1.03], p = 0.01; 90 d: 1.02 [1.01–1.03], p < 0.001). The model used had an appropriate fitness determined by the Hosmer–Lemeshow test of 0.15 for 28-day mortality and 0.58 for 90-day mortality.

2.2. Mortality Stratified by Ventilation Status

An adjusted logistic regression model was fitted for 28 d and 90 d mortality between non-IMV and IMV patients (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). The risk factor that showed the strongest association with mortality in non-IMV patients at 28 days was diabetes mellitus (OR [95% CI]) (2.96 [1.28–6.80], p = 0.01) and the SAPS II score (1.05 [1.02–1.07], p < 0.01). At 90 days, they were the SAPS II score (1.04 [1.02–1.06], p < 0.01) and an MDRP agent causing pneumonia (1.98 [1.13–3.44] p = 0.01). The model used had an appropriate fitness determined by the Hosmer–Lemeshow test of 0.87 for 28 d mortality and 0.30 for 90 d mortality (Table 2 and Table 3).
Regarding the patients who required IMV (Table 4 and Table 5), a higher SAPS II score at nLRTI diagnosis (28 d: 1.04 [1.02–1.05], p < 0.01; 90 d: 1.03 [1.02–1.05], p < 0.01) and older age (28 d: 1.02 [1.01–1.04], p < 0.01; 90 d: 1.03 [1.01–1.04], p < 0.01) showed significant association with 28 d and 90 d mortality. Furthermore, chronic liver disease showed an association with 28-day mortality (2.38 [1.06–5.31], p = 0.03). Further information regarding the 90-day mortality model can be found in Table 5. Although included in this model, MRSA infections did not show a significant association at any point. The model used had an appropriate fitness determined by the Hosmer–Lemeshow test of 0.28 for 28-day mortality and 0.06 for 90-day mortality.

3. Discussion

This multicenter and multinational prospective cohort study is focused on patients with nLRTI admitted to the ICU. After a non-supervised statistical analysis, we found that the best way to cluster patients into comparable groups with nLRTI was by the requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation at any time point during their hospitalization. Notably, over two-thirds of patients required mechanical ventilation and had an increased 28-day mortality risk. Consequently, the study identified the risk factors associated with 28-day and 90-day mortality in non-IMV and IMV patients. Among non-IMV patients, diabetes mellitus and MDRP infection were found to be independent factors associated with 28 d and 90 d mortality when the model was adjusted by older age and severity at diagnosis using the SAPS II score. For IVM patients, chronic liver disease was found to be strongly associated with 28 d mortality when the model was adjusted by severity according to the SAPS II score and age.
nLRTI is commonly regarded as the most frequently acquired infection in the ICU [11,12]. It has been estimated that approximately 65% of nosocomial infections originate from respiratory sources [13]. These infections occur at a rate of 5 to 10 cases per 1000 hospital admissions in Europe and the United States [14,15,16]. In ventilated patients, it is of particular concern, as VAP accounts for 10 to 40% of ICU pneumonia cases. In some countries, it can reach over 90% of patients who are intubated and mechanically ventilated [14,15,16,17]. In our cohort, which included patients from Europe and South America, more than two-thirds of nLRTI cases were reported in ventilated patients, aligning with previous research findings. While Shah et al. have reported a 5% decrease in the incidence of VAP in the United States over the last decade [18], the overall prevalence has largely remained stable. Among patients with nLRTI, those who received IMV faced a significantly increased 28-day mortality risk compared to those without mechanical ventilation. The worldwide all-cause mortality rate associated with VAP falls within the range of 20% to 50% [14], which is consistent with our findings. Notably, our study is a pioneer in prospectively assessing the issue of nosocomial pneumonia in several countries in Europe and South America. By including a larger, more diverse patient population, we have reduced random error and addressed the demographic heterogeneity, enhancing our results’ robustness and generalizability. It remains crucial to identify risk predictors promptly to identify at-risk patients effectively.
Our study introduces a different perspective by comparing the risk factors between non-IMV and IMV patients. Among non-IMV patients, past medical conditions, microbial etiology, and systemic corticoids us in previous studies led to increase in short- and mid-term mortality. In 2023, E. Bouza et al. conducted a comparative study on the etiology of nosocomial bacteremic pneumonia in ventilated and non-ventilated patients over the past decade, revealing a higher prevalence of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa in HAP, with an increased mortality rate of more than 40% [19], a trend that is further confirmed by our findings, which present MDRP infections associated with higher mortality rates in non-IMV patients; this association is further supported by an observational study conducted by de Oliveira et al. [20] They found that MDRP infections were linked to higher mortality rates, longer hospital stays, and an elevated risk of requiring mechanical ventilation. These findings align with our observation that MDRP infections emerged as a significant risk factor at the 90-day mark. However, further research is needed to evaluate the impact of inappropriate empiric antibiotic therapy at admission, as well as antibiotic misuse, on the development of nLRTI caused by MDRPs [20].
Regarding comorbidities, diabetes mellitus (DM) has been identified as an independent factor associated with mortality in non-IMV patients. The observation that DM is associated with mortality at 28 days but not at 90 days can be explained by the impact of DM on exacerbating the acute phase of the infection. This chronic condition may not influence long-term mortality, as those who survive the initial phase are less likely to be affected by diabetes during the resolution phase of the illness. This aligns and is further supported by the findings from Equils et al. in a randomized controlled trial on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia, where they noted that diabetic patients had higher overall 28-day mortality rates compared to non-diabetic patients (23.5% vs. 14.7%; RD = 8.8%, 95% CI [1.4, 16.3]) but this trend did not persist in long term mortality [21]. Furthermore, Yakoub et al. described this in a 2023 longitudinal cohort study, that DM was a significant risk factor for mortality in nosocomial pneumonia (OR: 2.98, p = 0.004) [22]. Although both studies had a smaller sample size than our cohort, their findings align with our results.
In IVM patients, chronic hepatic disease was associated with 28-day mortality but not with 90-day mortality. Similarly to DM, this may be due to the significant impact of these chronic conditions during the acute phase of infection. Pasquale et al. in 2013 found that patients with liver disease had significantly higher 28-day and 90-day mortality rates (63% vs. 28%, p < 0.001; 72% vs. 38%, p < 0.001, respectively) compared to non-chronic liver disease patients. Although their results seem contradictory in terms of temporality to ours, their cohort only included patients who acquired pneumonia in the ICU. In contrast, our ventilated group included patients who were ventilated before developing an nLRTI and those who developed HAP after required ventilation. These differences in patient populations likely contributed to the variations in long-term outcomes between the two studies [23]. In the same vein, our results are further supported by Maruyama et al. [24] who found that chronic liver disease was a significant factor associated with 30-day mortality due to pneumonia from any cause, not specifically nosocomial acquired, with an (OR: 3.029, 95% CI [1.126–8.149], p = 0.028) in a sample size similar to ours. However, our study specifically found an association of chronic liver disease with mortality in IMV patients [24].
For IVM and non-IMV patients, the SAPS II score showed a statistically significant association with the evaluated outcome. SAPS II is a score that provides an estimate of the risk of death within the first 24 h from calculation without having to specify a primary diagnosis [16]; showing a discriminative power for ICU 24 h mortality in nosocomial pneumonia with an AUC [95% CI] 0.752 [0.656–0.848] and a specificity of 83.93 [25] when calculated on the day of nLRTI diagnosis, demonstrating that this score is rather valuable for the acute phase of the illness. While the SAPS II score was included in our regression models to determine associated factors at 28 and 90 days, it cannot be interpreted as a risk factor despite its statistical significance. The very low hazard ratio indicates that this variable primarily serves to adjust the model rather than to predict long-term mortality independently. Its discriminative power for mortality over extended periods is minimal, as supported by studies like Iwashyna et al., which showed that the predictive ability of acute illness severity scores, such as SAPS II, diminishes over time. Specifically, it found that while such scores accurately predict outcomes during ICU admission, their predictive power wanes after approximately 10 days in the ICU, giving way to other factors like age, sex, and chronic health status [26].
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of our study. First, using fixed data represents a significant limitation, particularly in predicting long-term outcomes, as it fails to capture the dynamic changes in patient health over time. Additionally, clustering patients into two groups, including specific subgroups like the IMV group, introduces bias, especially since patients with VHAP, whose nLRTI was not due to ventilation, were included. However, to our knowledge, this is a pioneering study strengthened by its multicentric and multinational scope across Europe and Latin America. Second, the evolving dynamics in pneumonia management, particularly the shift toward non-IMV strategies with high-flow nasal cannulas, further complicates the extrapolation of our results to current practice as the smaller sample was in the non-IMV group. A further limitation of this study is the lack of data on glucose control during hospitalization, as blood glucose measurements were not consistently collected as well as the lack of MELD score or Child-Pugh classification data for chronic liver disease. This prevented us from assessing their potential impact on patient outcomes and mortality in nLRTI.
Nevertheless, it is essential to mention that there is still limited migration to non-IMV strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries, and the results found are valuable and provide a starting point for future research. Third, although DAGs suggest potential collinearity between variables like SAPS II and IMV, the statistical assessment shows minimal correlation (point-biserial correlation coefficient = −0.0765). Fourth, we could not assess the quality of sputum samples collected for microorganism identification, the techniques used for sample collection, the implementation of preventive strategies against infections caused by microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa and MRSA, or the specific antibiotic treatments administered. This information could have provided additional insights. However, it is essential to mention that even with high-quality sputum, the etiological agent of lower respiratory infections is only identified in 38% of all cases [27]. Fifth, the variability in the time taken to diagnose nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (nLRTI) and the lack of standardized treatment protocols across different ICUs may have resulted in the omission of specific fungal and viral tests, potentially introducing bias. Although technical and diagnostic capabilities may be limited in some countries, guidelines for managing healthcare-associated respiratory infections are widely disseminated and applied globally, reducing bias. Despite these limitations, our results are valuable because they are consistent with previous studies and provide insights that can help physicians identify specific patient characteristics, ultimately leading to better patient care.

4. Materials and Methods

This multicenter, multinational prospective cohort study represents one of the primary analyses of the European network for ICU-related respiratory infections (ENIRRI) multicenter study across 28 ICUs in 13 countries throughout Europe and Latin America, including Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. The participating hospitals were selected based on logistical feasibility and their ability to contribute to the study objectives. The study enrolled critically ill patients admitted between 9 May 2016, and 16 August 2019, with each site conducting enrollment over a continuous 12-month period within this timeframe. Consecutive patients aged 18 years or older were included if they developed a lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) at least 48 h after hospital admission (i.e., nosocomial LRTI), were later admitted to the ICU, and/or developed LRTI during their ICU stay. Follow-up was performed for all enrolled patients until hospital discharge.
The study followed the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). The study received approval from the institution’s Internal Review Board (Comité Ètic d’Investigació Clínica, registry number HCB/2020/0370) and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT03183921). Additionally, each of the thirteen participating sites obtained approval from its institutional ethics committee to conduct the study. Informed consent from patients was obtained when this was requested per local regulations. All clinical data were anonymized and transferred to the coordinating center for data curation and analysis. Further details are provided in reference [1].

4.1. Definitions

According to the 2016 ATS/IDS guidelines, pneumonia is characterized by new lung infiltrates accompanied by clinical indicators suggestive of an infectious origin, including recent onset of fever, purulent sputum, leukocytosis, and decline in oxygenation. Consequently, nosocomial pneumonia is diagnosed in patients who develop a pulmonary infection after being hospitalized for 48 h or more. HAP is identified explicitly as pneumonia occurring in patients after 48 h of being admitted to the hospital while not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined based on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification, with a KDIGO Stage ≥ 2 [28]. In contrast, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined according to the Berlin definition [29]. Multiorgan failure was determined when three or more organ systems failed following the diagnosis of nLRTI, and septic shock was defined as sepsis-induced hypotension with elevated lactate (≥2 mmol/L), persisting despite adequate fluid resuscitation [30,31].

4.2. Data Collection

All data were collected from the medical chart and transferred by the principal investigator to the multinational dataset. Demographics, type of admission, previous treatments, comorbidities, laboratories, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [32], new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) [33], clinical complications, microbiological information, and clinical outcomes, such as ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, 28-day mortality (28 d), and 90-day mortality (90 d), were included in the dataset. The microbiological diagnosis was confirmed by sputum in non-ventilated patients and using bronchoscopy or blind bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or tracheobronchial aspirates (TBA) in ventilated patients. The microbiological threshold was BAL ≥ 104 colony-forming units per mL and ≥105 colony-forming units for sputum or TBAs. Notably, microbiology assessment was performed based on international and local guidelines, not per study protocol. Ventilatory management strategies, treatments, and microbiological evaluations were not standardized across centers. Instead, these decisions were made at the discretion of the attending clinician, guided by local practices and supported by international recommendations.

4.3. Clustering Patients by Shared Demographic and Clinical Characteristics to Enhance Model Accuracy and Generalizability

After obtaining demographic, clinical, and laboratory features, missing data were addressed using the K-nearest neighbors (KNN) imputation method, applied only to variables with less than 30% missing data to maintain data integrity. Variables exceeding this threshold were excluded from the analysis to avoid introducing bias.
Patients were initially categorized into five groups as described in the first publication of this cohort: HAP, ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia (VHAP), intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia (ICU-AP), VAP, and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) [1]. Two clustering strategies were proposed to enhance statistical power and identify phenotypically similar patient groups. The first strategy involved clustering patients based on the acquisition site of nLRTI (either in the general ward or the ICU), assuming that patients in the ICU were generally more critically ill. The second strategy was based on whether patients required mechanical ventilation at any point during their hospitalization, with the rationale that many patients were already ventilated before nLRTI development, often due to severe underlying conditions like trauma or major surgery. This clustering strategy aimed to reflect the severity of the patient’s pre-existing condition rather than the infection itself. Both methods were designed to create clusters of patients sharing similar clinical and demographic characteristics, optimizing the accuracy of risk factor identification.
Predictor variables were separated from the target variables, and a Random Forest Classifier model, known for its effectiveness with complex datasets and non-linear relationships, was chosen for training and clustering patients into groups that shared similar characteristics. The model underwent training using the Random Forest algorithm with 100 decision trees. Mechanical ventilation status and the place of acquisition, whether in the ward or ICU, were utilized as clinically plausible variables to cluster patients alongside all demographic variables.
Stratified K-fold cross-validation assessed model performance, revealing significant differences between ventilated and non-ventilated patient groups based on the selected variables. Model accuracy was evaluated using traditional accuracy metrics and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

All categorical variables are presented as relative and absolute frequencies and continuous variables with median (Interquartile Ranges [IQR]) or mean (Standard Deviations [SD]) depending on their distribution according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The non-normal variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U and t-test for those with normal distribution. The x2 or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical variables. The variables with 30% or more missing data were not used in the analysis to prevent bias and maintain integrity in the analysis.
First, a bivariate analysis was carried out to identify the factors related to the outcome. Bivariate analyses examine potential correlations between variables, guided by our directed acyclic graph (DAG) (Figure S1) to explore the relationships between covariates and mortality. Variables with a p-value < 0.2 in the bivariate analysis are considered for further inclusion in the multivariate logistic regression model. However, inclusion in the bivariate analysis does not guarantee inclusion in the final model.
The DAG is employed to identify potential collinear variables or those within others’ causal pathways, ensuring that only the most relevant variables are incorporated into the multivariate analysis. A backward elimination method is applied, with a stopping rule based on p-values. Variables with p-values between 0.3 and 0.4 are removed to maintain model parsimony, adjusting from the initially proposed threshold of 0.5 [34]. Combining bivariate analysis, DAG-guided selection, and backward elimination ensures robust and precise identification of risk factors.
The final model is adjusted based on the most significant and relevant covariates, ensuring appropriate adjustment and minimizing bias in estimating associations between risk factors and mortality. Then, multivariable logistic regression models assessed risk factors (HR [95% CI]) associated with 28 d and 90 d mortality among non-ventilated and ventilated patients. In the multivariate test, 28 and 90 days of mortality were taken as the dependent dichotomic variables. The non-IMV model was adjusted by age, taken as a dichotomic variable (>65 years), and severity using the SAPS II score as a continuous variable. The IMV model was adjusted by age and severity, and the SAPS II score was used in both cases as a continuous variable. The goodness of fitness of the multivariable logistic regression models was assessed with the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and the level of significance considered at two-tailed was a p-value < 0.05. All the analyses were performed in the SPSS statistical package, version 29.

5. Conclusions

This multicenter, multinational study conducted in Europe and Latin America sheds light on the clinical landscape of nLRTI, which continues to be an essential issue in the context of critical care. We provide insights into the higher mortality risk associated with this condition and its risk factors, finding significant differences between non-invasive ventilated and invasive-ventilated patients in the critical care setting. These results highlight the necessity of moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach, advocating instead for personalized strategies that consider patient severity, demographics, and the specific characteristics of the infection. Early identification of at-risk patients is essential for guiding targeted therapeutic efforts to improve outcomes. Future studies focusing on the distinct groups identified by the ENIRRI group could further refine risk stratification, enabling a more precise and personalized approach for these homogeneous yet distinct patient populations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics14020127/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: I.M.-L., A.T., L.F.R. and O.T.R.; Data Curation: L.F.R., I.M.-L., O.T.R., E.D.I.-P. and C.C.S.-M.; Formal Analysis: L.F.R., I.M.-L., J.O.-G., E.D.I.-P. and C.C.S.-M.; Funding Acquisition: I.M.-L., A.T. and L.F.R.; Investigation: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato), R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T.; Methodology: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato), R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T.; Project Administration: L.F.R., I.M.-L. and A.T.; Resources: I.M.-L. and A.T.; Software: L.F.R., I.M.-L., J.O.-G., E.D.I.-P. and C.C.S.-M.; Supervision: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato), R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T.; Methodology: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato), R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T.; Validation: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato), R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T.; Methodology: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato) R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T.; Visualization: L.F.R., I.M.-L., J.O.-G., E.D.I.-P. and C.C.S.-M.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., C.C.S.-M. and A.T.; Writing—Review and Editing: L.F.R., I.M.-L., E.D.I.-P., J.O.-G., S.N. (Saad Nseir), O.T.R., P.P., E.D., M.J.S., A.H.R., C.C.S.-M., G.D.P., P.N., S.S., M.E., L.M.C., A.C. (Andrea Cortegiani), S.A., A.C. (Anselmo Caricato), H.J.F.S., A.C. (Adrian Ceccato), R.C., P.M.S., C.-E.L., P.K.E., F.R., J.R.M., J.M., S.I.-M., S.N. (Stefano Nava), D.C., L.D.B., A.A., F.F., D.G., M.P., F.S.T., M.A. and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the IReL Consortium. European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaboration (Prof Ignacio Martin-Loeches) for The European Network for ICU-Related Respiratory Infections (ENIRRIs) and Universidad de La Sabana [MED-244-2018].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study received approval from the Institutional Review Board (Comité Ètic d’Investigació Clínica, registry number HCB/2020/0370). The IRB waived the requirement for informed consent as the study involved only prospective chart reviews. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier NCT03183921.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was waived by the IRB under the approved protocol (HCB/2020/0370) due to the nature of the study, which included only prospective chart reviews. All clinical data were anonymized and securely transferred to the coordinating center for data curation and analysis.

Data Availability Statement

Data and materials will be available upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

ENIRRI Collaborators: Esteban Garcia-Gallo, Sara Duque, Natalia Sanabria, Yuli Viviana Fuentes, Francesco Blasi, Marta Di Pasquale, Paolo Maurizio Soave, Giorgia Spinazzola, Anselmo Caricato, Serena Silva, Mariachiara Ippolito, Federico Longhini, Andrea Bruni, Eugenio Garofalo, Vittoria Comellini, Luca Fasano, Angelo Pezzi, Valeria A Enciso-Prieto.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Martin-Loeches, I.; Reyes, L.F.; Nseir, S.; Ranzani, O.; Povoa, P.; Diaz, E.; Schultz, M.J.; Rodriguez, A.H.; Serrano-Mayorga, C.C.; De Pascale, G.; et al. European Network for ICU-Related Respiratory Infections (ENIRRIs): A multinational, prospective, cohort study of nosocomial LRTI. Intensive Care Med. 2023, 49, 1212–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kalil, A.C.; Metersky, M.L.; Klompas, M.; Muscedere, J.; Sweeney, D.A.; Palmer, L.B.; Napolitano, L.M.; O’Grady, N.P.; Bartlett, J.G.; Carratala, J.; et al. Management of Adults with Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 63, e61–e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 171, 388–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ferrer, M.; Torres, A. Epidemiology of ICU-acquired pneumonia. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2018, 24, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bekaert, M.; Timsit, J.F.; Vansteelandt, S.; Depuydt, P.; Vesin, A.; Garrouste-Orgeas, M.; Decruyenaere, J.; Clec’h, C.; Azoulay, E.; Benoit, D.; et al. Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A reappraisal using causal analysis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 184, 1133–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Costa, R.D.; Baptista, J.P.; Freitas, R.; Martins, P.J. Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia in a Multipurpose Intensive Care Unit: One-Year Prospective Study. Acta Med. Port. 2019, 32, 746–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Pugh, R.; Grant, C.; Cooke, R.P.; Dempsey, G. Short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD007577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Magill, S.S.; Klompas, M.; Balk, R.; Burns, S.M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Diekema, D.; Fridkin, S.; Greene, L.; Guh, A.; Gutterman, D.; et al. Developing a new, national approach to surveillance for ventilator-associated events: Executive summary. Chest 2013, 144, 1448–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Papajk, J.; Uvizl, R.; Kolar, M. Effect of previous antibiotic therapy on the epidemiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Klin. Mikrobiol. Infekc. Lek. 2019, 25, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Parker, C.M.; Kutsogiannis, J.; Muscedere, J.; Cook, D.; Dodek, P.; Day, A.G.; Heyland, D.K. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant organisms or Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Prevalence, incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. J. Crit. Care 2008, 23, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fernando, S.M.; Tran, A.; Cheng, W.; Klompas, M.; Kyeremanteng, K.; Mehta, S.; English, S.W.; Muscedere, J.; Cook, D.J.; Torres, A.; et al. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1170–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Papazian, L.; Klompas, M.; Luyt, C.E. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: A narrative review. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 888–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vincent, J.L.; Rello, J.; Marshall, J.; Silva, E.; Anzueto, A.; Martin, C.D.; Moreno, R.; Lipman, J.; Gomersall, C.; Sakr, Y.; et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA 2009, 302, 2323–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shebl, E.; Gulick, P.G. Nosocomial Pneumonia. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kumar, S.T.; Yassin, A.; Bhowmick, T.; Dixit, D. Recommendations from the 2016 Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Pharm. Ther. 2017, 42, 767–772. [Google Scholar]
  16. Erb, C.T.; Patel, B.; Orr, J.E.; Bice, T.; Richards, J.B.; Metersky, M.L.; Wilson, K.C.; Thomson, C.C. Management of Adults with Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2016, 13, 2258–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zaragoza, R.; Vidal-Cortes, P.; Aguilar, G.; Borges, M.; Diaz, E.; Ferrer, R.; Maseda, E.; Nieto, M.; Nuvials, F.X.; Ramirez, P.; et al. Update of the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shah, H.; Ali, A.; Patel, A.A.; Abbagoni, V.; Goswami, R.; Kumar, A.; Velasquez Botero, F.; Otite, E.; Tomar, H.; Desai, M.; et al. Trends and Factors Associated with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A National Perspective. Cureus 2022, 14, e23634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bouza, E.; Guillen-Zabala, H.; Rojas, A.; Canada, G.; Cercenado, E.; Sanchez-Carrillo, C.; Martin-Rabadan, P.; Diez, C.; Puente, L.; Munoz, P.; et al. Comparative study of the etiology of nosocomial bacteremic pneumonia in ventilated and non-ventilated patients: A 10-year experience in an institution. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e0151723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Oliveira, A.B.S.; Sacillotto, G.H.; Neves, M.F.B.; Silva, A.; Moimaz, T.A.; Gandolfi, J.V.; Nogueira, M.C.L.; Lobo, S.M. Prevalence, outcomes, and predictors of multidrug-resistant nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections among patients in an ICU. J. Bras. Pneumol. 2023, 49, e20220235. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Equils, O.; da Costa, C.; Wible, M.; Lipsky, B.A. The effect of diabetes mellitus on outcomes of patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Data from a prospective double-blind clinical trial comparing treatment with linezolid versus vancomycin. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Yakoub, M.; Elkhwsky, F.; El Tayar, A.; El Sayed, I. Hospital-acquired pneumonia pattern in the intensive care units of a governmental hospital: A prospective longitudinal study. Ann. Afr. Med. 2023, 22, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Di Pasquale, M.; Esperatti, M.; Crisafulli, E.; Ferrer, M.; Bassi, G.L.; Rinaudo, M.; Escorsell, A.; Fernandez, J.; Mas, A.; Blasi, F.; et al. Impact of chronic liver disease in intensive care unit acquired pneumonia: A prospective study. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39, 1776–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Maruyama, T.; Fujisawa, T.; Ishida, T.; Ito, A.; Oyamada, Y.; Fujimoto, K.; Yoshida, M.; Maeda, H.; Miyashita, N.; Nagai, H.; et al. A Therapeutic Strategy for All Pneumonia Patients: A 3-Year Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study Using Risk Factors for Multidrug-resistant Pathogens to Select Initial Empiric Therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 68, 1080–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Srinivasan, M.; Shetty, N.; Gadekari, S.; Thunga, G.; Rao, K.; Kunhikatta, V. Comparison of the Nosocomial Pneumonia Mortality Prediction (NPMP) model with standard mortality prediction tools. J. Hosp. Infect. 2017, 96, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Iwashyna, T.J.; Hodgson, C.L.; Pilcher, D.; Bailey, M.; van Lint, A.; Chavan, S.; Bellomo, R. Timing of onset and burden of persistent critical illness in Australia and New Zealand: A retrospective, population-based, observational study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2016, 4, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Jain, S.; Self, W.H.; Wunderink, R.G.; Fakhran, S.; Balk, R.; Bramley, A.M.; Reed, C.; Grijalva, C.G.; Anderson, E.J.; Courtney, D.M.; et al. Community-Acquired Pneumonia Requiring Hospitalization among U.S. Adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kellum, J.A.; Lameire, N.; KDIGO AKI Guideline Work Group. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: A KDIGO summary (Part 1). Crit. Care 2013, 17, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Force, A.D.T.; Ranieri, V.M.; Rubenfeld, G.D.; Thompson, B.T.; Ferguson, N.D.; Caldwell, E.; Fan, E.; Camporota, L.; Slutsky, A.S. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: The Berlin Definition. JAMA 2012, 307, 2526–2533. [Google Scholar]
  30. Evans, L.; Rhodes, A.; Alhazzani, W.; Antonelli, M.; Coopersmith, C.M.; French, C.; Machado, F.R.; McIntyre, L.; Ostermann, M.; Prescott, H.C.; et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 47, 1181–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Evans, L.; Rhodes, A.; Alhazzani, W.; Antonelli, M.; Coopersmith, C.M.; French, C.; Machado, F.R.; McIntyre, L.; Ostermann, M.; Prescott, H.C.; et al. Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 49, 1974–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vincent, J.L.; Moreno, R.; Takala, J.; Willatts, S.; De Mendonca, A.; Bruining, H.; Reinhart, C.K.; Suter, P.M.; Thijs, L.G. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996, 22, 707–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Le Gall, J.R.; Lemeshow, S.; Saulnier, F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 1993, 270, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chowdhury, M.Z.I.; Turin, T.C. Variable selection strategies and its importance in clinical prediction modelling. Fam. Med. Community Health 2020, 8, e000262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Study flowchart of included patients diagnosed with nLRTIs and clinical outcomes.
Figure 1. Study flowchart of included patients diagnosed with nLRTIs and clinical outcomes.
Antibiotics 14 00127 g001
Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with nLRTI stratified by those requiring IMV.
Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with nLRTI stratified by those requiring IMV.
VariablesInvasive Mechanical Ventilation p-Value
No
N = 250
Yes
N = 810
Demographics
  Gender (Male) 180 (72.0) 589 (72.7) 0.82
  Age 66 [57–75] 63 [49–73] 0.003
  >65 years 180 (72.0) 589 (72.7) 0.002
  BMI 25.9 (22.3–29.4) 26.0 (23.3–29.4) 0.38
Comorbidities
  Diabetes Mellitus48 (19.2) 167 (20.6) 0.62
  Chronic Renal Disease 37 (14.8) 83 (10.2) 0.05
  Immune Compromise 94 (37.6) 170 (21.0) <0.001
  Chronic Heart Disease 77 (30.8) 209 (25.8) 0.12
  Chronic Liver Disease 17 (6.8) 49 (6.0) 0.83
  Chronic Lung Disease 70 (28.0) 169 (20.9) 0.02
  Drug Abuse 39 (15.6) 169 (20.9) 0.07
Severity at ICU admission
  SAPS II score 41.0 [30.0–54.0] 48.0 [38.0–59.0] <0.001
  SOFA score 6.0 [4.0–9.0] 8.0 [5.0–10.0] <0.001
  Systemic Corticoid Use 58 (23.2) 197 (24.3) 0.72
  Coma 27 (10.8) 223 (27.5) <0.001
Type of ICU admission
  Scheduled Surgery 31 (12.4) 64 (7.9) <0.001
  Emergency Surgery 24 (9.6) 139 (17.2)
  Medical 186 (74.4) 514 (63.5)
  Trauma 9 (3.6) 93 (11.5)
Laboratory results on the first day of hospital admission
  Leucocytes 12.940 (8.150–17.700) 12.800 (9.600–17.470) 0.461
  PaO2/FiO2 170.0 (126.0–242.4) 196.5 (140.0–266.0) 0.005
Complications
  Septic shock 70 (28.0) 256 (31.6) 0.28
  Acute kidney injury 47 (18.8) 171 (21.1) 0.42
  Multiorgan failure 29 (11.6) 130 (16.1) 0.08
Microbiological Etiology and Antibiotic Resistance
  MRSA infection 21 (8.4) 34 (4.2) <0.001
  P. aeruginosa infection 16 (6.4) 138 (17.0) 0.01
  Recurrence infection 52 (20.8) 205 (25.3) 0.15
  MDRP 45 (18.0) 217 (26.8) 0.01
Outcomes
  ICU LOS 14 [7–25] 22 [13–37] <0.001
  Hospital LOS 36 [23–61] 39 [22–65] 0.38
  28 days mortality 36 (14.4) 167 (20.6) 0.03
  90 days mortality 76 (30.4) 283 (34.9) 0.19
Data are presented as No. (%) or Median [IQR]. BMI: Body Mass Index, SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Scores II, SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDRP: Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens, ICU: Intensive Care Units, LOS: Length of Stay.
Table 2. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 28 days mortality among non-IMV patients.
Table 2. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 28 days mortality among non-IMV patients.
VariableBivariateMultivariate
OR (95% IC) p-Value OR (95% IC) p-Value
Demographic
  Age > 651.42 (0.62–3.30) 0.27 0.69 (0.30–1.52) 0.38
  Gender (male) 1.43 (0.62–3.30) 0.55
  BMI 1.01 (0.95–1.06) 0.71
Comorbidities
  Diabetes Mellitus 2.89 (1.34–6.25) 0.01 2.96 (1.28–6.80) 0.01
  Chronic Renal Disease 2.28 (0.45–3.07) 0.80
  Immunocompromised Disease 0.80 (0.38–1.70) 0.71
  Chronic Heart Disease 1.15 (0.54–2.43) 0.70
  Chronic Liver Disease 0.78 (0.17–3.57) 1.00
  Lung Disease 1.34 (0.63–2.86) 0.43
  Drug Abuse 1.37 (0.55–3.40) 0.46
Severity
  SAPS II (Pneumonia Diagnosis) 1.04 (1.02–1.06) <0.001 1.05 (1.02–1.07) <0.001
  Systemic Corticoid Use 1.56 (0.72–3.41) 0.29
  Coma0.72 (0.20–2.53) 0.78
Complications
  Acute kidney injury2.56 (1.17–5.59) 0.02
Microorganism and Antibiotic-Resistance Pattern
  P. aeruginosa infection 2.64 (0.74–9.41) 0.13
  MRSA infection 1.15 (0.30–4.43) 0.73
  MDRP 0.70 (0.26–1.92) 0.64 1.62 (0.83–3.18) 0.15
BMI: Body Mass Index, SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDRP: Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.
Table 3. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 90-day mortality among non-IMV patients.
Table 3. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 90-day mortality among non-IMV patients.
VariableBivariate Multivariate
OR (95% IC) p-Value OR (95% IC) p-Value
Demographic
  Age > 65 yrs 1.10 (0.92–1.32) 0.16 0.91 (0.48–1.73) 0.77
  Gender (male) 1.43 (0.62–3.30) 0.55
  BMI 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.71
Comorbidities
  Diabetes Mellitus 2.89 (1.34–6.25) 0.01 1.37 (0.67–2.80) 0.37
  Chronic Renal Disease 1.18 (0.45–3.07) 0.80
  Immunocompromised Disease 0.80 (0.38–1.70) 0.71
  Chronic Heart Disease 1.15 (0.54–2.43) 0.70
  Chronic Liver Disease 0.78 (0.17–3.57) 1.00
  Lung Disease 1.34 (0.63–2.86) 0.43
  Drug Abuse 1.37 (0.55–3.40) 0.46
Severity
  SAPS II (Pneumonia Diagnosis) 1.04 (1.03–1.06) <0.001 1.04 (1.02–1.06) <0.001
  Systemic Corticoid Use 1.56 (0.72–3.41) 0.29
  Coma 0.72 (0.20–2.53) 0.78
Complications
  Acute kidney injury 2.56 (1.17–5.59) 0.02
Microorganism and Antibiotic-Resistance Pattern
  P. aeruginosa infection 2.64 (0.74–9.41) 0.13
  MRSA infection 1.15 (0.30–4.43) 0.73
  MDRP 0.70 (0.26–1.92) 0.64 1.98 (1.13–3.44) 0.01
BMI: Body Mass Index, SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDRP: Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.
Table 4. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 28 days mortality among patients under IMV.
Table 4. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 28 days mortality among patients under IMV.
VariableBivariate Multivariate
OR (95% IC) p-Value OR (95% IC) p-Value
Demographic
  Age 1.03 (1.02–1.04) <0.001 1.02 (1.01–1.04) <0.01
  Gender (male) 1.10 (0.75–1.63) 0.70
  BMI 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.18
Comorbidities
  Diabetes Mellitus 1.03 (0.68–1.56) 0.91
  Chronic Renal Disease 1.66 (1.00–2.76) 0.06
Immunocompromised Disease 0.95 (0.63–1.45) 0.92
  Chronic Heart Disease 1.35 (0.93–1.96) 0.14
  Chronic Liver Disease 1.96 (1.05–3.65) 0.04 2.38 (1.06–5.31) 0.03
  Lung Disease 1.25 (0.84–1.88) 0.29
  Drug Abuse 0.68 (0.43–1.07) 0.11
Severity
  SAPS II (Pneumonia Diagnosis) 1.04 (1.03–1.06) <0.001 1.04 (1.02–1.05) <0.001
  Systemic Corticoid Use 0.94 (0.63–1.40) 0.84
  Coma 0.93 (0.63–1.36) 0.77
Complications
  Acute kidney injury 1.23 (0.82–1.84) 0.34
Microorganism and Antibiotic-Resistance Pattern
  P. aeruginosa infection 0.59 (0.34–1.01) 0.06
  MRSA infection 1.90 (0.88–4.10) 0.11 2.02 (0.83–4.9) 0.11
  MDRP 0.86 (0.58–1.28) 0.49
BMI: Body Mass Index, SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDRP: Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.
Table 5. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 90 days mortality among patients under IMV.
Table 5. Bivariate and multivariate analysis for 90 days mortality among patients under IMV.
Variable Bivariate Multivariate
OR (95% IC) p-Value OR (95% IC) p-Value
Demographic
  Age 1.03 (1.02–1.04) <0.001 1.03 (1.01–1.04) <0.001
  Gender (male) 1.03 (0.75–1.43) 0.87
  BMI 1.02 (0.99–1.04) 0.30
Comorbidities
  Diabetes Mellitus 1.46 (1.03–2.06) 0.04
  Chronic Renal Disease 2.18 (1.38–3.45) 0.001
  Immunocompromised Disease 1.32 (0.93–1.87) 0.13
  Chronic Heart Disease 1.73 (1.26–2.39) 0.001
  Chronic Liver Disease 1.71 (0.95–3.05) 0.09 1.94 (0.91–4.10) 0.08
  Lung Disease 1.21 (0.85–1.72) 0.28
  Drug Abuse 0.79 (0.55–1.14) 0.21
Severity
  SAPS II (Pneumonia Diagnosis) 1.04 (1.03–1.05) <0.001 1.03 (1.02–1.05) <0.001
  Systemic Corticoid Use 1.31 (0.94–1.82) 0.12
  Coma 1.18 (0.86–1.62) 0.32
Complications
  Acute kidney injury 1.62 (1.15–2.28) 0.01
Microorganism and Antibiotic-Resistance Pattern
  P. aeruginosa infection 0.71 (0.47–1.08) 0.12
  MRSA infection 1.59 (0.79–3.20) 0.20 1.60 (0.70–3.64) 0.26
  MDRP 1.25 (0.91–1.73) 0.18
BMI: Body Mass Index, SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDRP: Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Reyes, L.F.; Torres, A.; Olivella-Gomez, J.; Ibáñez-Prada, E.D.; Nseir, S.; Ranzani, O.T.; Povoa, P.; Diaz, E.; Schultz, M.J.; Rodríguez, A.H.; et al. Factors Associated with Mortality in Nosocomial Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: An ENIRRI Analysis. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14020127

AMA Style

Reyes LF, Torres A, Olivella-Gomez J, Ibáñez-Prada ED, Nseir S, Ranzani OT, Povoa P, Diaz E, Schultz MJ, Rodríguez AH, et al. Factors Associated with Mortality in Nosocomial Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: An ENIRRI Analysis. Antibiotics. 2025; 14(2):127. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14020127

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reyes, Luis Felipe, Antoni Torres, Juan Olivella-Gomez, Elsa D. Ibáñez-Prada, Saad Nseir, Otavio T. Ranzani, Pedro Povoa, Emilio Diaz, Marcus J. Schultz, Alejandro H. Rodríguez, and et al. 2025. "Factors Associated with Mortality in Nosocomial Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: An ENIRRI Analysis" Antibiotics 14, no. 2: 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14020127

APA Style

Reyes, L. F., Torres, A., Olivella-Gomez, J., Ibáñez-Prada, E. D., Nseir, S., Ranzani, O. T., Povoa, P., Diaz, E., Schultz, M. J., Rodríguez, A. H., Serrano-Mayorga, C. C., De Pascale, G., Navalesi, P., Skoczynski, S., Esperatti, M., Coelho, L. M., Cortegiani, A., Aliberti, S., Caricato, A., ... Martin-Loeches, I., on behalf of the European Network for ICU-Related Respiratory Infections (ENIRRIs) European Respiratory Society-Clinical Research Collaboration Investigators. (2025). Factors Associated with Mortality in Nosocomial Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: An ENIRRI Analysis. Antibiotics, 14(2), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14020127

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop