Next Article in Journal
Aminoglycoside Resistance Among Clinical Bacterial Isolates in Sétif, Algeria: Epidemiology, Multidrug Resistance, and Virulence Features
Previous Article in Journal
Risk Factors Associated with the Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria and Fungal Infections in Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Length and Type of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Infection Prevention in Adults Patient in the Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/antibiotics15020221
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Arms-Based Meta-Analysis of Microbiological Endpoints of 88 VAP Prevention Studies Using Antimicrobial Versus Non-Antimicrobial Strategies—Towards ‘VAP-Zero’?

by
James C. Hurley
1,2,3
1
Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Australia
2
Ballarat Health Services, Grampians Health, Ballarat Central 3350, Australia
3
Ballarat Clinical School, Deakin University, Ballarat Central 3350, Australia
Antibiotics 2026, 15(2), 221; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020221
Submission received: 13 January 2026 / Revised: 6 February 2026 / Accepted: 10 February 2026 / Published: 17 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention in Intensive Care Unit)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background/Objectives: In traditional contrast-based meta-analyses of randomized concurrent controlled trials (RCCTs), topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) appears more effective than either antiseptic-based or non-antimicrobial-based interventions for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The objective here is to use arm-based methods to determine whether this effectiveness translates towards achieving VAP-zero, both overall and specifically for VAP in association with Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species among the same RCCTs. Methods: Data were extracted from RCCTs sourced primarily from Cochrane reviews of VAP prevention interventions. Arms-based and contrast-based methods of meta-analyses of the VAP prevention effect size and the VAP incidence per 100 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were obtained using random effects methods. Results: The VAP prevention intervention effect sizes derived by contrast-based versus arms-based meta-analyses were similar for each of the three broad types of interventions. The overall VAP prevention effect of antibiotic-based interventions by contrast-based and arms-based methods were 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.46; n = 28) versus 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.47; n = 28), respectively. Surprisingly, the arms-based analysis revealed that the summary VAP incidence, both overall and for each of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species within antibiotic intervention groups, were similar to the respective summary incidences within intervention groups of non-antimicrobial RCCTs. Conclusions: VAP-zero, both overall and in association with specific microbial sub-types, has remained elusive using antimicrobial-based interventions. This inference was not evident from a contrast-based analysis.

1. Introduction

There are numerous randomized concurrent controlled trials of interventions to prevent the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]. The interventions can be broadly classified into non-antimicrobial- and antimicrobial-based interventions. The latter include antiseptic-based decontamination and antibiotic-based decontamination interventions. In total, 88 randomized concurrent controlled trials present data for VAP isolates including Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species (Table 1).
In preventing VAP, an aspirational goal for many intensive care units is to approach VAP-zero, an aspiration in line with the VAP-zero initiative [101]. On the other hand, a contrary view is that VAP is inevitable, especially when considering ICU patient populations with greater lengths of stay [102,103,104,105].
Antimicrobial-based methods appear more effective than non-antimicrobial-based methods in traditional contrast-based meta-analyses, but these methods are unable to indicate the propensity of the intervention groups of the various RCCTs to approach VAP-zero. Such an appraisal would require each control and intervention arm of the randomized concurrent controlled trials analyzed separately in an arms-based meta-analysis. Arms-based meta-analysis can most simply be undertaken using methods applied to the analysis of diagnostic tests such as Summary Receiver Operator Characteristic (SROC) plots [106,107,108].
VAP occurs in 5 to 40% of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in intensive care units [109,110,111,112,113,114,115]. It would be expected that the effect of non-antimicrobial-based interventions would be more similar in their prevention effect versus each of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species than would be the case for antimicrobial-based interventions. However, the impact of the various non-antimicrobial-based versus antimicrobial-based interventions on the occurrence of VAP in association with these various types of isolates is not clear. Specifically, might ‘VAP-zero’ be more readily attainable for VAP in association with some isolates rather than others and with one broad category of intervention? A contrast-based analysis cannot address this question.
There are four objectives here: first, to compare the VAP prevention effect size estimates of various prevention interventions within the literature as generated using contrast-based versus arms-based methods of meta-analysis; second, to triangulate the estimates here with the previous effect size summaries for non-antimicrobial-, antiseptic- and antibiotic-based interventions within the literature; third, to then also compare the prevention effect size estimates for VAP in association with Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species; finally, using the arms-based approach including a meta-regression, compare the different interventions towards their propensity to attain VAP-zero.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Selection and Decant of Groups

The literature search used here (Figure 1) is as described previously [116,117]. Cochrane reviews and other systematic reviews [118,119,120,121,122,123] were used as the primary source of studies, with additional studies being found by snowball sampling using the “Related articles” function within Google Scholar. Clinical trial databases were not accessed.
The inclusion criteria were cohorts of patients requiring prolonged (>24 h) ICU stays for which the incidence proportions of VAP overall and VAP in association with Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species. The listing of at least two of the three infections was required so as to avoid selecting studies which may have reported only the most prominent VAP isolate type. Data were extracted for each component group where there was more than one type of control or intervention group.
The studies were classified into three broad groups of study interventions being non- antimicrobial, antiseptic-based, and antibiotic-based. Non-antimicrobial interventions were studies of various approaches to the control of upper gastrointestinal tract colonization through various stress ulcer prevention or feeding approaches, as well as various approaches to control airway colonization through airway management [90,91,92,93,94,95].
Antiseptic-based interventions included the use of agents such as chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and iseganan. All antiseptic exposures were included regardless of whether the application was to the oropharynx, by toothbrushing, or by body wash [98,99]. Antibiotic-based interventions included the use of either topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) to the oropharynx or stomach (without regard to the specific antibiotic constituents) or whether protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP) was used in addition to the topical antibiotics or used alone [100,101].
The inclusion criteria were deliberately broad without regard to the frequency or duration of interventions under study or any criteria of study quality. Studies published between 1985 and 2024 were included. Studies originating from pediatric ICUs were not excluded. Studies for which patient inclusion was on the basis of risk factors for fungal infections and studies with fewer than 25 patients were excluded.

2.2. Outcomes of Interest

Regarding the count of VAP, both overall and in association with each of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species, there was no imputation of missing data. Study quality was taken as judged in each source document and standardized into a simple binary score based on whether the quality score was assigned a majority of possible scoring points.
The independent variable in the regression models was the mean length of the ICU stay (LOS). If this was not available, the median LOS or the mean or median duration of mechanical ventilation were used. The VAP incidence proportion and LOS data were all derived from the original publications. The VAP incidence proportion, being count data, were logit transformed using the number receiving prolonged (>24 h) mechanical ventilation as the denominator. The LOS data were positively skewed and were log transformed.

2.3. Summary Effect Size; Contrast-Based Analysis

Indicative summary prevention effect sizes versus VAP, for each category, were derived from all studies. Summary prevention effect sizes versus VAP in association with Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species were also derived where available.
Study specific and overall summary VAP prevention effect sizes and associated 95% confidence interval were calculated for each category using random effect methods of meta-analysis. The data were set for two group comparisons of binary outcomes using the ‘meta’ command in Stata 18 (Stata Corp.; College Station, TX, USA) and the default restricted maximum likelihood [124].

2.4. Arms-Based Analysis and SROC Plots

The data from the component control and intervention groups of randomized concurrent controlled trials were decanted from each randomized concurrent controlled trial with care to include the groups from the three arm studies only once. Summary VAP incidence proportion data were derived using the ‘meta’ command in Stata 18 and the default restricted maximum likelihood. SROC plots, being a bivariate plot of control versus intervention group incidences of VAP, were derived [106,107].

2.5. Arms-Based Meta-Regression

The relationship between study specific prevention effect sizes versus log transformed LOS of each of the three broad categories of intervention toward the prevention of VAP were modelled by meta-regression.

2.6. Availability of Data and Materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study have been included in this published article (see Table 1).

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Studies

Of the 88 randomized concurrent controlled trials identified by the search, 48 studies were found in either twelve Cochrane [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101] or other systematic reviews [102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,125]. Most studies were published between 1990 and 2010, and most had a mean ICU LOS exceeding ten days. Five randomized concurrent controlled trials had either more than one type of intervention group or more than one type of control group. Most groups had between 50 and 100 patients. Most studies originated from either North American or European ICUs. VAP count data for all three VAP isolates were available from 58 randomized concurrent controlled trials (Table 2).
The most common non-antimicrobial interventions were gastric pH management (10 studies), heat and moisture exchange (11 studies) and endotracheal tube management (8 studies). The most common antiseptic intervention was topical chlorhexidine (4 studies), and the most common antibiotic intervention was some type of combination topical antibiotic and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis regimen (11 studies).

3.2. Prevention Effect Sizes

The study specific and summary effect sizes derived by contrast-based and arms-based methods for the three categories of intervention against VAP are presented in Table 3. Significant summary prevention effects against both overall VAP and S. aureus VAP were evident for all three categories. There were significant summary prevention effects against Pseudomonas VAP for the non-antimicrobial and antibiotic categories.
The summary effect size estimates derived by arms-based methods, as diagnostic odds ratios, were similar to those derived by contrast-based methods for overall VAP, Pseudomonas VAP, and S. aureus VAP. The SROC models failed to converge with the Acinetobacter for the non-antimicrobial and antiseptic models.
Antibiotics 15 00221 g002
Figure 2. SROC plots of summary effect size of non-antimicrobial (a; top), antiseptic (b; middle), and antibiotic (c; bottom) interventions in preventing overall VAP. Pneumonia incidence among control and intervention groups with symbol size proportional to group size (hollow circles). The diagonal dotted line is the line of equivalence and the curved green line is the summary SROC curve. Also shown are the summary point (solid red square), the hierarchical summary ROC curve (green) with 95% confidence limits (dotted yellow inner ellipse), and 95% prediction limits (dotted purple outer ellipse).
Figure 2. SROC plots of summary effect size of non-antimicrobial (a; top), antiseptic (b; middle), and antibiotic (c; bottom) interventions in preventing overall VAP. Pneumonia incidence among control and intervention groups with symbol size proportional to group size (hollow circles). The diagonal dotted line is the line of equivalence and the curved green line is the summary SROC curve. Also shown are the summary point (solid red square), the hierarchical summary ROC curve (green) with 95% confidence limits (dotted yellow inner ellipse), and 95% prediction limits (dotted purple outer ellipse).
Antibiotics 15 00221 g002
Antibiotics 15 00221 g003
Figure 3. SROC plots of summary effect size of non-antimicrobial (a; top), antiseptic (b; middle), and antibiotic (c; bottom) interventions in preventing Pseudomonas VAP. Pneumonia incidence among control and intervention groups with symbol size proportional to group size (hollow circles). The diagonal dotted line is the line of equivalence and the curved green line is the summary SROC curve. Also shown are the summary point (solid red square), the hierarchical summary ROC curve (green) with 95% confidence limits (dotted yellow inner ellipse), and 95% prediction limits (dotted purple outer ellipse).
Figure 3. SROC plots of summary effect size of non-antimicrobial (a; top), antiseptic (b; middle), and antibiotic (c; bottom) interventions in preventing Pseudomonas VAP. Pneumonia incidence among control and intervention groups with symbol size proportional to group size (hollow circles). The diagonal dotted line is the line of equivalence and the curved green line is the summary SROC curve. Also shown are the summary point (solid red square), the hierarchical summary ROC curve (green) with 95% confidence limits (dotted yellow inner ellipse), and 95% prediction limits (dotted purple outer ellipse).
Antibiotics 15 00221 g003
Antibiotics 15 00221 g004
Figure 4. SROC plots of summary effect size (and associated 95% confidence and 95% prediction ellipses) of non-antimicrobial (a; top), antiseptic (b; middle), and antibiotic (c; bottom) interventions in preventing Staphylococcus aureus VAP. The diagonal dotted line is the line of equivalence and the curved green line is the summary SROC curve. Also shown are the summary point (solid red square), the hierarchical summary ROC curve (green) with 95% confidence limits (dotted yellow inner ellipse), and 95% prediction limits (dotted purple outer ellipse).
Figure 4. SROC plots of summary effect size (and associated 95% confidence and 95% prediction ellipses) of non-antimicrobial (a; top), antiseptic (b; middle), and antibiotic (c; bottom) interventions in preventing Staphylococcus aureus VAP. The diagonal dotted line is the line of equivalence and the curved green line is the summary SROC curve. Also shown are the summary point (solid red square), the hierarchical summary ROC curve (green) with 95% confidence limits (dotted yellow inner ellipse), and 95% prediction limits (dotted purple outer ellipse).
Antibiotics 15 00221 g004

3.3. Arms-Based Analysis and Meta-Regression

The summary overall VAP incidences for the control groups of the studies of antibiotic interventions, being 34%, were higher versus the summary incidences for the control groups for the other two categories, being 21 and 22%. Paradoxically, the summary overall VAP incidences for the intervention groups, being in the range of 12 to 16%, were similar across the three categories (Table 3).
The mean overall VAP proportion was above 40% for 11 of 27 antibiotic control groups but only six of the 63 control groups in the other studies. The mean overall VAP proportion was below 5% for only 11 intervention groups, eight from non-antimicrobial studies and three from studies of antibiotic-based interventions (Figure 2).
Likewise, the summary Pseudomonas VAP and Staphylococcus aureus VAP incidences for the control groups of the studies of antibiotic interventions were higher versus the summary VAP incidences for the control groups of the other two categories. Again, paradoxically, the summary VAP incidences for these isolates for the intervention groups for the three categories were more similar to each other (Table 3; Figure 3 and Figure 4).
These paradoxical VAP incidences were also apparent in the arms-based meta-regression whether with or without adjustment for LOS (Table 4). Membership in a concurrent control group of a study of an antibiotic-based intervention was associated with a significantly higher incidence of all types of VAP. Membership in an intervention group of a study of an antibiotic-based intervention was not associated with a lower incidence of overall VAP, although it was associated with a lower incidence of Pseudomonas VAP in the adjusted model.

4. Discussion

With respect to the four objectives here, firstly, the effect size estimates for three broad categories of prevention interventions against overall VAP derived using contrast-based versus arms-based meta-analysis methods here were substantially equivalent.
Secondly, these prevention effect size estimates triangulated with previous effect size summaries for the three broad categories of prevention interventions derived for a larger number of studies within the Cochrane reviews and other literature sources (Table 5). The summary prevention effect sizes of the various non-antimicrobial interventions derived for a larger number of studies within the literature generally had risk ratios between 0.5 and 0.95, which compares to the odds ratio derived here from all 56 RCCTs of non-antimicrobial interventions of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.86).
Third, the prevention effect estimates for the various interventions differed slightly in their prevention effect towards VAP associated with each of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species. However, with each, the odds ratios derived from contrast-based versus arms-based meta-analysis methods were substantially similar (Table 3). Moreover, the estimates obtained in the meta-regression models were robust to adjustment for group mean LOS, quality score, and year of publication (Table 4). In all models, membership in a concurrent control group of an RCCT of an antibiotic-based VAP prevention intervention were strong and positive predictors for each of the associated VAP incidences; by contrast, membership in an intervention group of an RCCT of an antibiotic-based VAP prevention intervention were weaker and generally insignificant negative predictors.
Finally, in the arms-based analysis and SROC plots, VAP-zero appeared to be elusive for both VAP overall and VAP in association with each of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter species. For example, incidences for overall VAP of less than 5%, the lower limit of the expert VAP incidence range, were rare (Figure 2). Moreover, low VAP incidences were no more common among studies of antimicrobial versus non-antimicrobial interventions either for overall VAP or for VAP with any of the specific microbial types.
The mean VAP incidence and mean Pseudomonas aeruginosa-associated VAP incidence estimated here were similar to that observed in a worldwide multi-center prospective study [127].
The strengths in the analysis here included the large number of studies reporting at least two VAP types. Studies with only one VAP type might have either reported only the most prominent VAP type or the study may have had a specific focus on that VAP type [128]. This may have created a potential reporting bias.
The principle underlying contrast-based methods is that the random assignment of intervention, which is central to causal inference from RCCTs, is retained in the meta-analysis model [129]. Hence, the fundamental criticism of arms-based methods was that it ‘breaks’ this random assignment [130]. On the other hand, if there was spillover, the stable unit treatment value assumption, which was central to causal inference originating from random assignment, is no longer tenable. In which case, an arms-based analysis is to be preferred [131]. Moreover, arms-based analysis can enable comparisons of event rates observed within each arm to external benchmarks, such as the expert opinion VAP incidence range, towards deriving population level inferences.
The analysis extended the novel use of SROC methods as an arms-based approach to the analysis of RCCT data [107,108]. The SROC method was recently adapted for application to the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests. The SROC plot resembled the L’abbe plot as derived within a meta-analysis of RCCTs. Each displayed the dispersion in event rates in the two component groups along the y-axis for one versus the x-axis for the other [124]. For the L’abbe plot, these were the event rates in the intervention versus control groups, respectively. For the SROC plot, these were the test positive rates among the diseased (sensitivity) versus the non-diseased (which equates to 1 minus specificity), respectively. In both cases, the diagonal (y = x line) represented the locus where the event rates in the two populations in the comparison were equal. The two plots differed in how the covariation away from this line was displayed and how event rate dispersion was inferred. For the L’abbe plot, depending on whether the ES was defined as an odds ratio (OR), a risk ratio (RR), or a risk difference (RD), this gave a visual representation of covariation as either a line parallel to the y = x line (RD), a line that passed through the origin (RR), or a curve (OR), respectively. For the L’abbe plot, dispersion was merely a subjective visual inference which was dependent on whether the presumptive underlying relationship was an RD, RR, or OR.
For the SROC plot, on the other hand, the underlying relationship was always displayed as an OR and the dispersion in event rates, quantified as a summary point together with an enveloping 95% prediction ellipse, enabling projections of the sensitivity and specificity that future applications of the diagnostic test of interest might experience. The SROC displayed the summary operating curve which mapped the summary values of sensitivity and specificity within the SROC plot. Moreover, instead of two unidirectional 95% confidence limits, these models provided bi-directional 95% confidence regions (as ellipses) rather than as together with 95% prediction ellipses [108].
By displaying the event rates in both the control and intervention arms, arms-based methods can accommodate the potential issue of spillover effects to concurrent patients within the ICU not receiving decontamination as a possible ‘driver’ of the whole of intensive care unit infection event rates [107].
Antimicrobial-based interventions, using either topical antiseptics and oral care [98,99] or antibiotics [100,101], were presumed to alter the microbiome of the entire ICU. This spillover of intervention effect was anticipated from the first study [132] being postulated as “…having heavily contaminated patients next to decontaminated patients might adversely affect the potentially beneficial results [postulate one]. Secondly, a reduction of the number of contagious patients by applying [selective digestive decontamination] SDD in half of them, might reduce the acquisition, colonisation and infection incidence in the not-SDD-treated control group [postulate two]” [132].
Surprisingly, the randomized controlled trials of antimicrobial-based decontamination interventions with concurrent controls had an overall VAP incidence which was higher, not lower as was postulated above, than what might be expected in comparison to expert VAP incidence range estimates [109,110,111,112,113,114,115]. This high VAP remains unexplained. These RCCTs also had higher incidences of blood stream infections [102], candidemia [114], and mortality [133] which likewise are unexplained.
Rebound infection on withdrawal of antibiotic-based infection prevention interventions also need to be considered. Rebound infection had been noted among patients that became neutropenic following cytotoxic chemotherapy in hematology units in the 1970s. These severe and occasionally fatal infections were observed in patients who had prematurely discontinued the antibiotic-based intervention due to its intolerable taste. Rebound sepsis has been noted following hospital discharge among patients exposed to antibiotic therapy considered high risk for causing microbiome disruption [134].
Rebound may be imperceptible without specific surveillance for colonization and infections on withdrawal of decontamination interventions. Rebound following antibiotic-based discontinuation and ICU discharge manifested as a 50% increased risk of hospital-acquired infection [135]. Rebound of ceftazidime resistant Gram-negative bacteria may occur as a ‘whole of ICU’ phenomenon not limited to the antibiotic-based recipients, persisting as an ecological effect for several months after antibiotic-based withdrawal [136,137].
The use of protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis within some concurrent control groups may have modified the rebound and spillover effects from the intervention groups within these RCCTs.
There was an uncertain amount of spillover effect in these concurrent controlled RCCTs of VAP prevention using antimicrobial-based interventions which was as previously noted for several end points [138,139]. Any spillover effect would conflate the apparent prevention effect [140] which underlie the paradoxical observations [141].

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered.
There was considerable heterogeneity in the interventions, populations, study quality and RCCT designs among studies published over several decades included in the analysis here with no ability to adjust for underlying patient risk. The definitions of VAP used in various studies varied and this further added to the heterogeneity for endpoints related to VAP incidence. Despite this heterogeneity in overall VAP incidences, incidences < 5%, the lower limit of the expert VAP incidence range, were rare.
Whilst the RCCTs included here generally rated highly for study quality within Cochrane reviews, the potential effects of spillover and rebound were not recognized in these quality scores. Hence, the prevention effect estimates were considered ‘indicative’, and primarily related to the population level rather than the patient level of analysis.
The literature search has been opportunistic rather than systematic. By using existing systematic reviews as a starting point, the key interventions from the broadly selected studies can be readily identified and classified. These Cochrane reviews served as a source of effect size estimates for triangulation.
Mean LOS and even median LOS were crude measures of group level exposure for each group in the ICU context and exposure to the infection prevention interventions in the intervention groups. Of note, even cohorts with short mean LOS will contain patients with long LOS and vice versa. The analysis was ecological, and the estimates related to the impacts of antiseptic-based and antibiotic-based interventions on ICU patient cohorts. The associations for group-wide exposures may not equate to associations at the patient level of exposure.
Many studies of decontamination interventions will have been underpowered to adequately assess key safety end points or to assess for novel microbiome interactions that have been thought to contribute to VAP [116].
There has been no imputation of missing data. There has been no search for data outside of the English-language literature. Only the three major subgroups have been analyzed with no further subgroup analysis due to the limited number of studies.
Finally, there could be the potential for publication and reporting bias if studies merely listed only the most prominent VAP isolate. This bias has been addressed by limiting inclusion to those studies reporting at least two isolates. However, this leaves a substantial number of studies which failed to report the VAP isolates. Also, uncommon isolates that might be causes of VAP have not been considered, such as Enterococci [139]. Of note, the effect size metrics for the prevention of overall VAP estimates here were similar to those derived from all available studies whether or not a listing VAP isolate data was available.

5. Conclusions

VAP-zero both overall and in association with specific microbial sub-types remains elusive using antimicrobial-based interventions. The control group incidence of VAP in association with Staphylococcus aureus, Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was unusually high among RCCTs that showed apparent effectiveness of antimicrobial-based VAP prevention interventions.

Funding

This research has been supported by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing through the Rural Clinical Training and Support (RCTS) program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. Being an analysis of published work, ethics committee review of this study was not required.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ICUIntensive Care Unit
IQRInter-Quartile Range
LOSLength Of Stay
MVMechanical Ventilation
RCCTRandomized Concurrent Controlled Trial
SROCSummary Receiver Operator Characteristic
TAPTopical Antibiotic Prophylaxis
VAPVentilator-Associated Pneumonia

References

  1. Acosta-Escribano, J.; Fernández-Vivas, M.; Carmona, T.G.; Caturla-Such, J.; Garcia-Martinez, M.; Menendez-Mainer, A.; Sanchez-Payá, J. Gastric versus transpyloric feeding in severe traumatic brain injury: A prospective, randomized trial. Intensive Care Med. 2010, 36, 1532–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bonten, M.J.; Gaillard, C.A.; Van der Geest, S.; Van Tiel, F.H.; Beysens, A.J.; Smeets, H.G.; Stobberingh, E.E. The role of intragastric acidity and stress ulcer prophylaxis on colonization and infection in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. A stratified, randomized, double-blind study of sucralfate versus antacids. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1995, 152, 1825–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cook, D.; Guyatt, G.; Marshall, J.; Leasa, D.; Fuller, H.; Hall, R.; Peters, S.; Rutledge, F.; Griffith, L.; McLellan, A.; et al. A comparison of sucralfate and ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998, 338, 791–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Damas, P.; Legrain, C.; Lambermont, B.; Dardenne, N.; Guntz, J.; Kisoka, G.; Demaret, P.; Rousseau, A.F.; Jadot, L.; Piret, S.; et al. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by noble metal coating of endotracheal tubes: A multi-center, randomized, double-blind study. Ann. Intensive Care 2022, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dat, V.Q.; Minh Yen, L.; Thi Loan, H.; Dinh Phu, V.; Thien Binh, N.; Geskus, R.B.; Khanh Trinh, D.H.; Hoang Mai, N.T.; Hoan Phu, N.; Huong Lan, N.P.; et al. Effectiveness of continuous endotracheal cuff pressure control for the prevention of ventilator-associated respiratory infections: An open-label randomized, controlled trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 74, 1795–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Daumal, F.; Colpart, E.; Manoury, B.; Mariani, M.; Daumal, M. Changing heat and moisture exchangers every 48 hours does not increase the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1999, 20, 347–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. David, D.; Samuel, P.; David, T.; Keshava, S.N.; Irodi, A.; Peter, J.V. An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suctioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care patients. J. Crit. Care 2011, 26, 482–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Djedaini, K.; Billiard, M.; Mier, L.; Le Bourdelles, G.; Brun, P.; Markowicz, P.; Estagnasie, P.; Coste, F.; Boussougant, Y.; Dreyfuss, D. Changing heat and moisture exchangers every 48 hours rather than 24 hours does not affect their efficacy and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1995, 152, 1562–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Drakulovic, M.B.; Torres, A.; Bauer, T.T.; Nicolas, J.M.; Nogué, S.; Ferrer, M. Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: A randomised trial. Lancet 1999, 354, 1851–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dreyfuss, D.; Djedaini, K.; Weber, P.; Brun, P.; Lanore, J.J.; Rahmani, J.; Coste, F. Prospective study of nosocomial pneumonia and of patient and circuit colonization during mechanical ventilation with circuit changes every 48 hours versus no change. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1991, 143, 738–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dreyfuss, D.; Djedaïni, K.; Gros, I.; Mier, L.; Le Bourdellés, G.; Cohen, Y.; Estagnasié, P.; Coste, F.; Boussougant, Y. Mechanical ventilation with heated humidifiers or heat and moisture exchangers: Effects on patient colonization and incidence of nosocomial pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1995, 151, 986–992. [Google Scholar]
  12. Driks, M.R.; Craven, D.E.; Celli, B.R.; Manning, M.; Burke, R.A.; Garvin, G.M.; Kunches, L.M.; Farber, H.W.; Wedel, S.A.; McCabe, W.R. Nosocomial pneumonia in intubated patients given sucralfate as compared with antacids or histamine type 2 blockers. The role of gastric colonization. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987, 317, 1376–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Forestier, C.; Guelon, D.; Cluytens, V.; Guillart, T.; Sirot, J.; De Champs, C. Oral probiotic and prevention of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled pilot study in intensive care unit patients. Crit. Care 2008, 12, R69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.J.; Bengmark, S.; Kanellakopoulou, K.; Kotzampassi, K. Pro-and synbiotics to control inflammation and infection in patients with multiple injuries. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2009, 67, 815–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Heyland, D.K.; Cook, D.J.; Schoenfeld, P.S.; Frietag, A.; Varon, J.; Wood, G. The effect of acidified enteral feeds on gastric colonization in critically ill patients: Results of a multicenter randomized trial. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Crit. Care Med. 1999, 27, 2399–2406.201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Holzapfel, L.; Chastang, C.; Demingeon, G.; Bohe, J.; Piralla, B.; Coupry, A. A randomized study assessing the systematic search for maxillary sinusitis in nasotracheally mechanically ventilated patients. Influence of nosocomial maxillary sinusitis on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1999, 159, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kappstein, I.; Schulgen, G.; Friedrich, T.; Hellinger, P.; Benzing, A.; Geiger, K.; Daschner, F.D. Incidence of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients treated with sucralfate or cimetidine as prophylaxis for stress bleeding: Bacterial colonization of the stomach. Am. J. Med. 1991, 91, S125–S131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kirton, O.C.; DeHaven, B.; Morgan, J.; Civetta, J.A. A prospective, randomized comparison of an in-line heat moisture exchange filter and heated wire humidifiers: Rates of ventilator-associated early-onset (community-acquired) or late-onset (hospital-acquired) pneumonia and incidence of endotracheal tube occlusion. Chest 1997, 112, 1055–1059. [Google Scholar]
  19. Knight, D.J.; Gardiner, D.; Banks, A.; Snape, S.E.; Weston, V.C.; Bengmark, S.; Girling, K.J. Effect of synbiotic therapy on the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35, 854–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kollef, M.H.; Vlasnik, J.O.; Sharpless, L.; Pasque, C.; Murphy, D.; Fraser, V. Scheduled change of antibiotic classes: A strategy to decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1997, 156, 1040–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kollef, M.H.; Afessa, B.; Anzueto, A.; Veremakis, C.; Kerr, K.M.; Margolis, B.D.; Schinner, R. Silver-coated endotracheal tubes and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: The NASCENT randomized trial. JAMA 2008, 300, 805–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kortbeek, J.B.; Haigh, P.I.; Doig, C. Duodenal versus gastric feeding in ventilated blunt trauma patients: A randomized controlled trial. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1999, 46, 992–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lacherade, J.C.; Auburtin, M.; Cerf, C.; Van de Louw, A.; Soufir, L.; Rebufat, Y.; Rezaiguia, S.; Ricard, J.D.; Lellouche, F.; Brun-Buisson, C.; et al. Impact of humidification systems on ventilator-associated pneumonia: A randomized multicenter trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 172, 1276–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lacherade, J.C.; De Jonghe, B.; Guezennec, P.; Debbat, K.; Hayon, J.; Monsel, A.; Bastuji-Garin, S. Intermittent subglottic secretion drainage and ventilator-associated pneumonia A multicenter trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 182, 910–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Launey, Y.; Nesseler, N.; Le Cousin, A.; Feuillet, F.; Garlantezec, R.; Mallédant, Y.; Seguin, P. Effect of a fever control protocol-based strategy on ventilator-associated pneumonia in severely brain-injured patients. Crit. Care 2014, 18, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Málaga, J.; Revert, C.; Mora, M.L.; Sierra, A. Bacterial filters in respiratory circuits: An unnecessary cost? Crit. Care Med. 2003, 31, 2126–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Galván, R.; Ramos, M.J.; Mora, M.L.; Sierra, A. Periodically changing ventilator circuits is not necessary to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia when a heat and moisture exchanger is used. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2004, 25, 1077–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Martín, M.M.; García, C.; Mora, M.L.; Sierra, A. Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a closed versus an open tracheal suction system. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 33, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Jiménez, A.; Mora, M.L.; Sierra, A. Tracheal suction by closed system without daily change versus open system. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Jimenez, A.; Mora, M.L.; Sierra, A. Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a heated humidifier or a heat and moisture exchanger: A randomized controlled trial. Crit. Care 2006, 10, R116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Jimenez, A.; Mora, M.L.; Sierra, A. Influence of an endotracheal tube with polyurethane cuff and subglottic secretion drainage on pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007, 176, 1079–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lorente, L.; Lecuona, M.; Jiménez, A.; Lorenzo, L.; Roca, I.; Cabrera, J.; Llanos, C.; Mora, M.L. Continuous endotracheal tube cuff pressure control system protects against ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit. Care 2014, 18, R77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mahmoodpoor, A.; Hamishehkar, H.; Hamidi, M.; Shadvar, K.; Sanaie, S.; Golzari, S.E.; Khan, Z.H.; Nader, N.D. A prospective randomized trial of tapered-cuff endotracheal tubes with intermittent subglottic suctioning in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. J. Crit. Care 2017, 38, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Manzano, F.; Fernandez-Mondejar, E.; Colmenero, M.; Poyatos, M.E.; Rivera, R.; Machado, J.; Catalan, I.; Artigas, A. Positive-end expiratory pressure reduces incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in nonhypoxemic patients. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 36, 2225–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marjanovic, N.; Boisson, M.; Asehnoune, K.; Foucrier, A.; Lasocki, S.; Ichai, C.; Leone, M.; Pottecher, J.; Lefrant, J.Y.; Falcon, D.; et al. Continuous pneumatic regulation of tracheal cuff pressure to decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia in trauma patients who were mechanically ventilated: The AGATE multicenter randomized controlled study. Chest 2021, 160, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Martin, C.; Perrin, G.; Gevaudan, M.J.; Saux, P.; Gouin, F. Heat and moisture exchangers and vaporizing humidifiers in the intensive care unit. Chest 1990, 97, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Miano, T.A.; Reichert, M.G.; Houle, T.T.; MacGregor, D.A.; Kincaid, E.H.; Bowton, D.L. Nosocomial pneumonia risk and stress ulcer prophylaxis: A comparison of pantoprazole vs ranitidine in cardiothoracic surgery patients. Chest 2009, 136, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Morrow, L.E.; Kollef, M.H.; Casale, T.B. Probiotic prophylaxis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 182, 1058–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nseir, S.; Zerimech, F.; Fournier, C.; Lubret, R.; Ramon, P.; Durocher, A.; Balduyck, M. Continuous control of tracheal cuff pressure and microaspiration of gastric contents in critically ill patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 184, 1041–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pickworth, K.K.; Falcone, R.E.; Hoogeboom, J.E.; Santanello, S.A. Occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated trauma patients: A comparison of sucralfate and ranitidine. Crit. Care Med. 1993, 21, 1856–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pneumatikos, I.; Konstantonis, D.; Tsagaris, I.; Theodorou, V.; Vretzakis, G.; Danielides, V.; Bouros, D. Prevention of nosocomial maxillary sinusitis in the ICU: The effects of topically applied alpha-adrenergic agonists and corticosteroids. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prod’hom, G.; Leuenberger, P.; Koerfer, J.; Blum, A.; Chiolero, R.; Schaller, M.D.; Perret, C.; Spinnler, O.; Blondel, J.; Siegrist, H.; et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients receiving antacid, ranitidine, or sucralfate as prophylaxis for stress ulcer. A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 1994, 120, 653–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Reignier, J.; Mercier, E.; Le Gouge, A.; Boulain, T.; Desachy, A.; Bellec, F.; Lascarrou, J.B. Effect of Not Monitoring Residual Gastric Volume on Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation and Early Enteral Feeding. A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2013, 309, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rongrungruang, Y.; Krajangwittaya, D.; Pholtawornkulchai, K.; Tiengrim, S.; Thamlikitkul, V. Randomized controlled study of probiotics containing Lactobacillus casei (Shirota strain) for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J. Med. Assoc. Thai. 2015, 98, 253–259. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rumbak, M.J.; Truncale, T.; Newton, M.N.; Adams, B.; Hazard, P. A Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Early Versus Delayed Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Medical Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation. Chest 2000, 118, 97S–98S. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ryan, P.; Dawson, J.; Teres, D.; Celoria, G.; Navab, F. Nosocomial pneumonia during stress ulcer prophylaxis with cimetidine and sucralfate. Arch. Surg. 1993, 128, 1353–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Smulders, K.; van der Hoeven, H.; Weers-Pothoff, I.; Vandenbroucke-Grauls, C. A randomized clinical trial of intermittent subglottic secretion drainage in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Chest 2002, 121, 858–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Somberg, L.; Morris, J., Jr.; Fantus, R.; Graepel, J.; Field, B.G.; Lynn, R.; Karlstadt, R. Intermittent intravenous pantoprazole and continuous cimetidine infusion: Effect on gastric pH control in critically ill patients at risk of developing stress-related mucosal disease. J. Trauma. Care Surg. 2008, 64, 1202–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Staudinger, T.; Bojic, A.; Holzinger, U.; Meyer, B.; Rohwer, M.; Mallner, F.; Locker, G.J. Continuous lateral rotation therapy to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 38, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Thomachot, L.; Viviand, X.; Arnaud, S.; Boisson, C.; Martin, C.D. Comparing two heat and moisture exchangers, one hydrophobic and one hygroscopic, on humidifying efficacy and the rate of nosocomial pneumonia. Chest 1998, 114, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thomachot, L.; Leone, M.; Razzouk, K.; Antonini, F.; Vialet, R.; Martin, C. Do the components of heat and moisture exchanger filters affect humidifying efficacy and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia? Crit. Care Med. 1999, 27, 923–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thomachot, L.; Leone, M.; Razzouk, K.; Antonini, F.; Vialet, R.; Martin, C. Randomized Clinical Trial of Extended Use of a Hydrophobic Condenser Humidifier: 1 vs. 7 Days. Crit. Care Med. 2002, 30, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Valencia, M.; Ferrer, M.; Farre, R.; Navajas, D.; Badia, J.R.; Nicolas, J.M.; Torres, A. Automatic control of tracheal tube cuff pressure in ventilated patients in semirecumbent position: A randomized trial. Crit. Care Med. 2007, 35, 1543–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Walaszek, M.; Gniadek, A.; Kolpa, M.; Wolak, Z.; Kosiarska, A. The effect of subglottic secretion drainage on the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia. Biomed. Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacky Olomouc. Czech Repub. 2017, 161, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zeng, J.; Wang, C.T.; Zhang, F.S.; Qi, F.; Wang, S.F.; Ma, S.; Wu, T.J.; Tian, H.; Tian, Z.T.; Zhang, S.L.; et al. Effect of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled multicenter trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016, 42, 1018–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Caruso, P.; Denari, S.; Ruiz, S.A.; Demarzo, S.E.; Deheinzelin, D. Saline instillation before tracheal suctioning decreases the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit. Care Med. 2009, 37, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fourrier, F.E.; Cau-Pottier, H.; Boutigny, M.; Roussel-Delvallez, M.; Jourdain Chopin, C. Effects of dental plaque antiseptic decontamination on bacterial colonization and nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2000, 26, 1239–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fourrier, F.; Dubois, D.; Pronnier, P.; Herbecq, P.; Leroy, O.; Desmettre, T.; Roussel-Delvallez, M. Effect of gingival and dental plaque antiseptic decontamination on nosocomial infections acquired in the intensive care unit a double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 33, 1728–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Koeman, M.; van der Ven, A.J.; Hak, E.; Joore, H.C.; Kaasjager, K.; de Smet, A.G.; Ramsay, G.; Dormans, T.P.; Aarts, L.P.; de Bel, E.E.; et al. Oral decontamination with chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 173, 1348–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kollef, M.; Pittet, D.; Sanchez Garcia, M.; Chastre, J.; Fagon, J.Y.; Bonten, M.; Hyzy, R.; Fleming, T.R.; Fuchs, H.; Bellm, L.; et al. A randomized double-blind trial of iseganan in prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 173, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sebastian, M.R.; Lodha, R.; Kapil, A.; Kabra, S.K. Oral mucosal decontamination with chlorhexidine for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in children—A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 13, e305–e310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Seguin, P.; Tanguy, M.; Laviolle, B.; Tirel, O.; Mallédant, Y. Effect of oropharyngeal decontamination by povidone-iodine on ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with head trauma. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 1514–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Seguin, P.; Laviolle, B.; Dahyot-Fizelier, C.; Dumont, R.; Veber, B.; Gergaud, S.; Asehnoune, K.; Mimoz, O.; Donnio, P.Y.; Bellissant, E.; et al. Effect of oropharyngeal povidone-iodine preventive oral care on ventilator-associated pneumonia in severely brain-injured or cerebral hemorrhage patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 42, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ferrer, M.; Torres, A.; Gonzalez, J.; Puig de la Bellacasa, J.; el-Ebiary, M.; Roca, M.; Gatell, J.M.; Rodriguez-Roisin, R. Utility of selective digestive decontamination in mechanically ventilated patients. Ann. Intern. Med. 1994, 120, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Laggner, A.N.; Tryba, M.; Georgopoulos, A.; Lenz, K.; Grimm, G.; Graninger, W.; Schneeweiss, B.; Druml, W. Oropharyngeal decontamination with gentamicin for long-term ventilated patients on stress ulcer prophylaxis with sucralfate? Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 1994, 106, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  66. Abele-Horn, M.; Dauber, A.; Bauernfeind, A.; Russwurm, W.; Seyfarth-Metzger, I.; Gleich, P.; Ruckdeschel, G. Decrease in nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients by selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD). Intensive Care Med. 1997, 23, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bergmans, D.C.; Bonten, M.J.; Gaillard, C.A.; Paling, J.C.; van der Geeest, S.I.; van Tiel, F.H.; Beysens, A.J.; de Leeuw, P.W.; Stobberingh, E.E. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 164, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Blair, P.; Rowlands, B.J.; Lowry, K.; Webb, H.; Armstrong, P.; Smilie, J. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: A stratified, randomized, prospective study in a mixed intensive care unit. Surgery 1991, 110, 303–309. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bouza, E.; Granda, M.J.; Hortal, J.; Barrio, J.M.; Cercenado, E.; Muñoz, P. Pre-emptive broad-spectrum treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia in high-risk patients. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39, 1547–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Claridge, J.A.; Edwards, N.M.; Swanson, J.; Fabian, T.C.; Weinberg, J.A.; Wood, C.; Croce, M.A. Aerosolized ceftazidime prophylaxis against ventilator-associated pneumonia in high-risk trauma patients: Results of a double-blind randomized study. Surg. Infect. 2007, 8, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dahyot-Fizelier, C.; Lasocki, S.; Kerforne, T.; Perrigault, P.F.; Geeraerts, T.; Asehnoune, K.; Cinotti, R.; Launey, Y.; Cottenceau, V.; Laffon, M.; et al. Ceftriaxone to prevent early ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with acute brain injury: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, assessor-masked superiority trial. Lancet Resp. Med. 2024, 12, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Georges, B.; Mazerolles, M.; Decun, J.-F.; Rouge, P.; Pomies, S.; Cougot, P.; Andrieu, P. Décontamination digestive sélective résultats d’une étude chez le polytraumatisé. Réanimation Soins Intensifs Médecin D’Urgence 1994, 3, 621–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jacobs, S.; Foweraker, J.E.; Roberts, S.E. Effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in an ICU with a policy encouraging a low gastric pH. Clin. Intensive Med. 1992, 3, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
  74. Karvouniaris, M.; Makris, D.; Zygoulis, P.; Triantaris, A.; Xitsas, S.; Mantzarlis, K.; Petinaki, E.; Zakynthinos, E. Nebulised colistin for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention. Eur. Resp. J. 2015, 46, 1544–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Klastersky, J.; Huysmans, E.; Weerts, D.; Hensgens, C.; Daneau, D. Endotracheally administered gentamicin for the prevention of infections of the respiratory tract in patients with tracheostomy: A double-blind study. Chest 1974, 65, 650–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Korinek, A.M.; Laisne, M.J.; Nicolas, M.H.; Raskine, L.; Deroin, V.; Sanson-lepors, M.J. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in neurosurgical intensive care unit patients: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Crit. Care Med. 1993, 21, 1466–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nouira, S.; Marghli, S.; Belghith, M.; Besbes, L.; Elatrous, S.; Abroug, F. Once daily oral ofloxacin in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation requiring mechanical ventilation: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2001, 358, 2020–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Palomar, M.; Alvarez-Lerma, F.; Jorda, R.; Bermejo, B. Catalan Study Group of Nosocomial Pneumonia Prevention. Prevention of nosocomial infection in mechanically ventilated patients: Selective digestive decontamination versus sucralfate. Clin. Intensive Care 1997, 8, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pneumatikos, I.; Koulouras, V.; Nathanail, C.; Goe, D.; Nakos, G. Selective decontamination of subglottic area in mechanically ventilated patients with multiple trauma. Intensive Care Med. 2002, 28, 432–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Quinio, B.; Albanese, J.; Bues-Charbit, M.; Viviand, X.; Martin, C. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in multiple trauma patients. A prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Chest 1996, 109, 765–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Reizine, F.; Asehnoune, K.; Roquilly, A.; Laviolle, B.; Rousseau, C.; Arnouat, M.; Dahyot-Fizelier, C.; Seguin, P. Effects of antibiotic prophylaxis on ventilator-associated pneumonia in severe traumatic brain injury. A post hoc analysis of two trials. J. Crit. Care 2019, 50, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Rocha, L.A.; Martin, M.J.; Pita, S.; Paz, J.; Seco, C.; Margusino, L.; Villanueva, R.; Duran, M.T. Prevention of nosocomial infection in critically ill patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Intensive Care Med. 1992, 18, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sanchez-Garcia, M.; Cambronero, J.A.; Lopez-Diaz, J.; Gomez Aguinaga, M.A.; Onoro Canaveral, J.J.; Sacristan del Castillo, J. Effectiveness and cost of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill intubated patients. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1998, 158, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Sirvent, J.M.; Torres, A.; El-Ebiary, M.; Castro, P.; De Batlle, J.; Bonet, A. Protective effect of intravenously administered cefuroxime against nosocomial pneumonia in patients with structural coma. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1997, 155, 1729–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Stoutenbeek, C.P.; van Saene, H.K.F.; Little, R.A.; Whitehead, A. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality in multiple trauma patients: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Verwaest, C.; Verhaegen, J.; Ferdinande, P.; Schetz, M.; Van den Berghe, G.; Verbist, L.; Lauwers, P. Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Crit. Care Med. 1997, 25, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wiener, J.; Itokazu, G.; Nathan, C.; Kabins, S.A.; Weinstein, R.A. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in a medical-surgical intensive care unit. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1995, 20, 861–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Winter, R.; Humphreys, H.; Pick, A.; MacGowan, A.P.; Willatts, S.M.; Speller, D.C. A controlled trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care and its effect on nosocomial infection. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1992, 30, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Verhaegen, J. Randomized Study of Selective Digestive Decontamination on Colonization and Prevention of Infection in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the ICU. Ph.D. Thesis, Katholic University, Leuven, Belgium, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  90. Toews, I.; George, A.T.; Peter, J.V.; Kirubakaran, R.; Fontes, L.E.S.; Ezekiel, J.P.B.; Meerpohl, J.J. Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 6, CD008687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bo, L.; Li, J.; Tao, T.; Bai, Y.; Ye, X.; Hotchkiss, R.S.; Kollef, M.H.; Crooks, N.H.; Deng, X. Probiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 10, CD009066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, L.; Li, X.; Yang, Z.; Tang, X.; Yuan, Q.; Deng, L.; Sun, X. Semi-recumbent position versus supine position for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults requiring mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 2016, CD009946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tokmaji, G.; Vermeulen, H.; Müller, M.C.A.; Kwakman, P.H.S.; Schultz, M.J.; Zaat, S.A.J. Silver-coated endotracheal tubes for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD009201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gillies, D.; Todd, D.A.; Foster, J.P.; Batuwitage, B.T. Heat and moisture exchangers versus heated humidifiers for mechanically ventilated adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 9, CD004711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Solà, I.; Benito, S. Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2007, 2007, CD004581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lewis, S.R.; Schofield-Robinson, O.J.; Alderson, P.; Smith, A.F. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 6, CD012276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Padilla, P.F.; Martínez, G.; Vernooij, R.W.; Urrútia, G.; i Figuls, M.R.; Cosp, X.B. Early enteral nutrition (within 48 hours) versus delayed enteral nutrition (after 48 hours) with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 2019, CD012340. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hua, F.; Xie, H.; Worthington, H.V.; Furness, S.; Zhang, Q.; Li, C. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 10, CD008367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zhao, T.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Li, C.; Worthington, H.V.; Hua, F. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 12, CD008367. [Google Scholar]
  100. Liberati, A.; D’Amico, R.; Pifferi, S.; Torri, V.; Brazzi, L. Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care (Review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009, 2009, CD000022. [Google Scholar]
  101. Minozzi, S.; Pifferi, S.; Brazzi, L.; Pecoraro, V.; Montrucchio, G.; D’Amico, R. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 1, CD000022. [Google Scholar]
  102. Álvarez-Lerma, F.; Palomar-Martínez, M.; Sánchez-García, M.; Martínez-Alonso, M.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, J.; Lorente, L.; Arias-Rivera, S.; García, R.; Gordo, F.; Añón, J.M.; et al. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: The multimodal approach of the Spanish ICU “Pneumonia Zero” Program. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bonten, M.J. Ventilator-associated pneumonia: Preventing the inevitable. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011, 52, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Hurley, J.C. Selective digestive decontamination-Con. Intensive Care Med. 2023, 49, 982–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hurley, J.C. Length of ICU stay and the apparent efficacy of antimicrobial based versus non-antimicrobial based ventilator pneumonia prevention interventions within the Cochrane review database. J. Hosp. Infect. 2023, 140, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Harbord, R.M.; Whiting, P. Metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J. 2009, 9, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hurley, J.C. Visualizing and diagnosing spillover within randomized concurrent controlled trials through the application of diagnostic test assessment methods. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2024, 24, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hurley, J. Meta-analysis of clinical studies of diagnostic tests: Developments in how the receiver operating characteristic “works”. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2011, 135, 1585–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chastre, J.; Fagon, J.Y. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002, 165, 867–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Apostolopoulou, E.; Bakakos, P.; Katostaras, T.; Gregorakos, L. Incidence and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in 4 multidisciplinary intensive care units in Athens. Respir. Care 2003, 48, 681–688. [Google Scholar]
  111. Edwards, J.R.; Peterson, K.D.; Mu, Y.; Banerjee, S.; Allen-Bridson, K.; Morrell, G.; Dudeck, M.A.; Pollock, D.A.; Horan, T.C. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: Data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. Am. J. Infect. Control 2009, 37, 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ding, C.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Wang, J.; Jin, A.; Wang, W.; Chen, R.; Zhan, S. Incidence, temporal trend and factors associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia in mainland China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Li, Y.; Liu, C.; Xiao, W.; Song, T.; Wang, S. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in traumatic brain injury: A meta-analysis. Neurocritical Care 2020, 32, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fagon, J.Y.; Chastre, J.; Vuagnat, A.; Trouillet, J.L.; Novara, A.; Gibert, C. Nosocomial pneumonia and mortality among patients in Intensive care unit. JAMA 1996, 275, 866–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chevret, S.; Hemmer, M.; Carlet, J.; Langer, M. Incidence and risk factors of pneumonia acquired in intensive care units. Results from a multicenter prospective study on 996 patients. European Cooperative Group on Nosocomial Pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 1993, 19, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hurley, J.C. Candida and the Gram-positive trio: Testing the vibe in the ICU patient microbiome using structural equation modelling of literature derived data. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 2022, 19, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hurley, J.C. Estimating the herd effects of antimicrobial prevention interventions on ventilator-associated pneumonia within ICU populations: A cluster randomized trial emulation using data from Cochrane reviews. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2025, 80, 1047–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hammond, N.E.; Myburgh, J.; Seppelt, I.; Garside, T.; Vlok, R.; Mahendran, S.; Adigbli, D.; Finfer, S.; Gao, Y.; Goodman, F.; et al. Association between selective decontamination of the digestive tract and in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2022, 328, 1922–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Pileggi, C.; Bianco, A.; Flotta, D.; Nobile, C.G.; Pavia, M. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, mortality and all intensive care unit acquired infections by topically applied antimicrobial or antiseptic agents: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in intensive care units. Crit. Care 2011, 15, R155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Labeau, S.O.; Van de Vyver, K.; Brusselaers, N.; Vogelaers, D.; Blot, S.I. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with oral antiseptics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Alhazzani, W.; Smith, O.; Muscedere, J.; Medd, J.; Cook, D. Toothbrushing for Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Evaluating Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 41, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Silvestri, L.; Weir, I.; Gregori, D.; Taylor, D.; Van Saene, J.; Van Saene, H. Effectiveness of oral chlorhexidine on nosocomial pneumonia, causative microorganisms and mortality in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014, 80, 805–820. [Google Scholar]
  123. Silvestri, L.; Van Saene, H.K.; Casarin, A.; Berlot, G.; Gullo, A. Impact of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on carriage and infection due to Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Anaesth. Intensive Care 2008, 36, 324–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. A Stata Press Publication. Stata Corporation Meta-Analysis Reference Manual, in Stata 16 Documentation; Stata Press Publication: College Station, TX, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  125. Hurley, J.C. Diagnosis of endotoxemia with gram-negative bacteremia is bacterial species dependent: A meta-analysis of clinical studies. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3826–3831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Klompas, M.; Speck, K.; Howell, M.D.; Greene, L.R.; Berenholtz, S.M. Reappraisal of routine oral care with chlorhexidine gluconate for patients receiving mechanical ventilation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern. Med. 2014, 174, 751–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kollef, M.H.; Chastre, J.; Fagon, J.Y.; François, B.; Niederman, M.S.; Rello, J.; Torres, A.; Vincent, J.L.; Wunderink, R.G.; Go, K.W.; et al. Global prospective epidemiologic and surveillance study of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 42, 2178–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Simor, A.E. Staphylococcal decolonisation: An effective strategy for prevention of infection? Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 952–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rubin, D.B. Statistics and causal inference: Comment: Which ifs have causal answers. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1986, 81, 961–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Dias, S.; Ades, A.E. Absolute or relative effects? Arm-based synthesis of trial data. Res. Synth. Methods 2016, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hong, H.; Chu, H.; Zhang, J.; Carlin, B.P. Rejoinder to the discussion of “a Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons,” by S. Dias and AE Ades. Res. Synth. Methods 2016, 7, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Stoutenbeek, C.P.; van Saene, H.K.; Miranda, D.R.; Zandstra, D.F. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on colonisation and infection rate in multiple trauma patients. Intensive Care Med. 1984, 10, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hurley, J. Spillover effects on mortality within randomized concurrent controlled trials of antimicrobial-based infection prevention interventions among the mechanically ventilated patient population. A reappraisal of Cochrane review data. J. Hosp. Infect. 2025, 163, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Baggs, J.; Jernigan, J.A.; Halpin, A.L.; Epstein, L.; Hatfield, K.M.; McDonald, L.C. Risk of subsequent sepsis within 90 days after a hospital stay by type of antibiotic exposure. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 66, 1004–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. de Smet, A.M.; Hopmans, T.E.; Minderhoud, A.L.; Blok, H.E.; Gossink-Franssen, A.; Bernards, A.T.; Bonten, M.J. Decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynx: Hospital acquired infections after discharge from the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35, 1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Oostdijk, E.A.; de Smet, A.M.; Blok, H.E.; Thieme Groen, E.S.; van Asselt, G.J.; Benus, R.F.; Bernards, S.A.; Frénay, I.H.; Jansz, A.R.; de Jongh, B.M.; et al. Ecological effects of selective decontamination on resistant Gram-negative bacterial colonization. Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 181, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Masse, J.; Elkalioubie, A.; Blazejewski, C.; Ledoux, G.; Wallet, F.; Poissy, J.; Preau, S.; Nseir, S. Colonization pressure as a risk factor of ICU-acquired multidrug resistant bacteria: A prospective observational study. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 36, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hurley, J. Estimating the herd effects of anti-microbial-based decontamination (ABD) interventions on intensive care unit (ICU) acquired bloodstream infections: A deductive meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2024, 14, e092030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Hurley, J.C. Studies of selective digestive decontamination as a natural experiment to evaluate topical antibiotic prophylaxis and cephalosporin use as population-level risk factors for enterococcal bacteraemia among ICU patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 3087–3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Hurley, J.C. Testing the Stable Unit Treatment Variance Assumption (SUTVA) Within Cochrane Reviews of Antimicrobial-Based Pneumonia Prevention Interventions Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients Using Caterpillar Plots. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 6841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Hurley, J.C. Paradoxical ventilator associated pneumonia incidences among selective digestive decontamination studies versus other studies of mechanically ventilated patients: Benchmarking the evidence base. Crit. Care 2011, 15, R7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 15 00221 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection. The four steps are as follows. 1. An electronic search of the Cochrane database [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101] for systematic reviews of non-antimicrobial [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97], antiseptic [98,99] and antibiotic [100,101] interventions to prevent VAP among MV patients in the ICU up to November 2025. 2. Additional studies meeting the inclusion criteria obtained from Google Scholar. The studies were streamed into three categories of RCCT; non-antimicrobial [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55], antiseptic [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63] and antibiotic [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]. 3. Exclusion criteria: n < 25; lacking VAP data; fewer than two VAP isolate types listed; publication prior to 1985; patient population selected for candidemia risk factors. 4. Control and intervention groups were decanted from the RCCT’s.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection. The four steps are as follows. 1. An electronic search of the Cochrane database [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101] for systematic reviews of non-antimicrobial [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97], antiseptic [98,99] and antibiotic [100,101] interventions to prevent VAP among MV patients in the ICU up to November 2025. 2. Additional studies meeting the inclusion criteria obtained from Google Scholar. The studies were streamed into three categories of RCCT; non-antimicrobial [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55], antiseptic [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63] and antibiotic [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]. 3. Exclusion criteria: n < 25; lacking VAP data; fewer than two VAP isolate types listed; publication prior to 1985; patient population selected for candidemia risk factors. 4. Control and intervention groups were decanted from the RCCT’s.
Antibiotics 15 00221 g001
Table 1. Characteristics of studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of studies.
PatientsVAPVAPVAP Isolate Counts
Author & InterventionC/IYearRef.QSLOS(n)(n)%PseudomonasAcinetobacterStaph aureus
Non-Antimicrobial
Acosta-EscribanoC20101118543157404
Acosta-Escribano FeedI20101116501632308
BontenC19952216.86715221104
Bonten GastricI19952219741622717
CookC19983213.7604981621.36
Cook GastricI19983212.85961141920.44
DamasC202241111553221413
Damas ETTI2022411116822132.1
DatC20225119301521717156
Dat ETTI20225120296511723167
DaumalC1999616.1174251411.7
Daumal HMEI1999617.3187301612.9
DavidC2011716100292920.5
David ETTI2011716100181810.4
DjedainiC1995819.761610030
Djedaini HMEI1995819.368812302
DrakulovicC1999919.7471123314
Drakulovic PositionI1999919.33925100
DreyfussC199110110351131332
Dreyfuss CCI199110112.828829121
DreyfussC19951111070811122
Dreyfuss HMEI199511112.561610030
DriksC198712214.2617115.4
Driks GastricI198712210.66916231.0
ForestierC20081311310624238.11
Forestier FeedI20081311310224243.12
Giamarellos-BourboulisC200914115361644212.
Giamarellos-Bourboulis FI20091411536154235.
HeylandC199915212467150.0
Heyland FeedI19991521349360.1
HolzapfelC199916114.620051266321
Holzapfel ETTI199916116.519937191047
KappsteinC19911725491224..11
Kappstein GastricI19911725552545..9
Kirton C19971811714022166.6
Kirton HMEI1997181201401076.6
KnightC200919271291713111
Knight FeedI20091926130129030
KollefC199920241831581.7
Kollef ETTI19992024160852.1
KollefC2008212474356811516
Kollef ETTI20082124766375819
KortbeekC1999221743184201.
Kortbeek FeedI19992211037102701.
LacheradeC200523125184532914016
Lacherade HMEI20052312118547259218
LacheradeC20102411116442261628
Lacherade SSDI2010241111692515922
LauenyC201425117911112006
Laueny otherI2014251119837380117
LorenteC20032611811626221018
Lorente HMEI2003261161142925907
LorenteC200427116.41433323816
Lorente CCI200427119.816137239314
LorenteC200528212.7233421812211
Lorente TSI200528212.5210432012110
LorenteC20062919.52213114718
Lorente TSI20062919.92363314918
LorenteC200630121518165.5
Lorente HMEI2006301205321402.2
LorenteC200731115.51403122418
Lorente SSDI200731114.1140118432
LorenteC2014321161503322615
Lorente SSDI2014321151341511301
MahmoodpoorC2017331181384633334
Mahmoodpoor ETTI2017331151383022201
ManzanoC200834112631625049
Manzano otherI20083418.56469024
Marjanović_AGATEC20213521421864296127
Marjanović_AGATE ETTI20213521421673345321
MartinC19933619.76147201
Martin HMEI19933619.75600010
MianoC20093714377318633
Miano GastricI2009371445751000
MorrowC201038214.67333456214
Morrow probioticI201038214.8731723038
NseirC201139110611626223
Nseir ETTI20113911261610011
PickworthC19934027.439615..0
Pickworth GastricI19934027.2445111.1
PneumatikosC200641116401128114
Pneumatikos otherI20064111539615012
Prod’homC19944225.6811822405
Prod’hom GastricI19944225.2811822405
Prod’homC19944225.1802228114
Prod’hom GastricI19944225.2831113102
ReigneirC20134321022235169.17
Reigneir otherI201343210227381712.10
RongrungruangC2015441875222936.
Rongrungruang probioticI2015441875182428.
RumbakC200445156015255.5
Rumbak otherI20044511660351.1
RyanC19934625.658814102
Ryan GastricI19934625.156713211
SmuldersC200247114.27512163.3
Smulders SSDI200247111.975341.1
SombergC2008482161671610312
Somberg GastricI2008482153539000
StaudingerC2010491147517235.2
Staudinger PositionI20104918758113.2
ThomachotC199850112662132317
Thomachot HMEI199850112702637218
ThomachotC199951111772431108
Thomachot HMEI199951112632133207
ThomachotC20025219842226207
Thomachot HMEI20025219711014015
ValenciaC200753113691014102
Valencia PositionI200753113731115312
WalaszekC2017541580486115394
Walaszek SSDI20175415100343410222
ZengC2016551221175950191416
Zeng probioticI2016551181184336131012
Antiseptic
CarusoC2009562171323123955
Caruso SalineI2009562171301411711
FourrierC200057224281450423
Fourrier ChlxI20005721830517120
FourrierC2005582131141211502
Fourrier ChlxI2005582141141311611
KoemanC20065921313023184.5
Koeman-ChlxI20065921412713100.2
Koeman-Chlx + CI20065921312816132.5
KollefC20066021434763189225
Kollef IseganinI20066021436280228217
SebastianC20126128451431380
SebastianI20126128411229361
Seguin—SCC2006622143112391.7
Seguin—CCI2006622193113420.7
Seguin-PVII20066221536380.3
SeguinC2014632167220281.11
Seguin-PVII2014632157824313.14
Antibiotic
FerrerC19946427.5501122402
Ferrer TAP + PPAPI19946427.551714103
LaggnerC199465130344121.0
Laggner TAPI199465124.933130.0
Abele-HornC199766122302377305
Abele-Horn TAP + PPAPI199766118581322209
Bergmans CCC2001672157824318.6
Bergmans TAPI200167213879103.3
BlairC1991682513038299.7
Blair TAP + PPAPI1991682512612101.1
BouzaC201369212388213.4
Bouza PPAPI201369210407183.2
ClaridgeC2007701245224469.10
Claridge PPAPI2007701215321407.10
Dahyot_FizelieC20247123015758371.27
Dahyot_Fizelie PPAPI20247122616235221.12
GeorgesC199472130331545.01
Georges TAPI19947213031413.10
JacobsC1992731104349000
Jacobs TAP + PPAPI199273193600000
KarvouniarisC201574113842530.114
Karvouniaris TAPI201574116841417.25
KlasterskyC197475119.94217404.2
Klastersky TAPI197475114.7435120.0
KorinekC199376226.69537393116
Korinek TAPI199376225.4962021019
NouiraC200177214.5461022550
Nouira PPAPI20017729.447360.0
PalomarC19977828.1461430123
PalomarC19977826.4422150608
Palomar TAP + PPAPI199778210.841717105
PneumatikosC20027912330165311.
Pneumatikos TAPI2002791163151601.
QuinioC199680215.772385312.16
Quinio TAPI1996802167619255.9
ReizineC20198121414988594354
Reizine TAPI20198121314657393136
RochaC199282285425468415
Rocha TAP + PPAPI1992822847715115
Sanchez-GarciaC1998832131406043..7
Sanchez-Garcia PPAPI1998832131313224..5
SirventC1997841165025501211
Sirvent PPAPI199784113501224313
StoutenbeekC20078521220010050282340
Stoutenbeek TAP + PPAPI2007852132016231111518
VerwaestC199786218.91854022749
Verwaest TAPC199786218.92003116749
Verwaest TAPI199786217.31932211246
WienerC199587211.231826004
Wiener TAP + PPAPI199587211.430827211
Winter CCC19928828921718821
Winter TAP + PPAPI19928826.49133300
Abbreviations: LOS = group mean or median length of stay; C/I = control/intervention groups; QS = quality score; VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia; ‘.’ = count not reported. Additional data for study 86 obtained from [89]. Studies 2, 3, 12, 17, 37, 40, 42, 46, and 48 were found in [90]; studies 13, 19, 38, 44, and 55 were found in [91]; study 9 was found in [92]; study 21 was found in [93]; studies 11, 18, 23, 30, 36, and 52 were found in [94]; studies 28 and 29 identified in [95]; no eligible studies were found in [96,97]; studies 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, and 63 were found in [98,99]; studies 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, and 88 were found in [100,101]. Intervention categories: ETT = endotracheal tube; HME = heat and moisture exchange; SSD = subglottic secretion drainage; Chlx = chlorhexidine; PVI = povidine iodine; TAP = topical antibiotic prophylaxis; PPAP = protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis; CC = Usual Care Control; SC = saline control.
Table 2. Characteristics of studies a.
Table 2. Characteristics of studies a.
Non-AntimicrobialAntisepticAntibiotic
Study characteristics
Ref.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55][56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63][64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]
Number of studies55825
Origin from systematic review b18817
North American ICUs c1312
Control group PPAP d002
Group mean age; (mean)55.448.550.1
Group mean age; (95% CI)52.3 to 58.442 to 54.546.2 to 54
Study publication year (median)200620061997
Study publication year (range)1987–20222000–20141974–2024
Group characteristics
Types of groups
  • CC
56927
  • Intervention
561028
Numbers of patients per group;
(median) e		837252
Numbers of patients per group;
(IQR) e		61 to 16631 to 13042 to 130
Group mean LOS; (mean)12.911.415.9
Group mean LOS; (95% CI)11.3 to 14.48.3 to 14.514 to 17.9
a Note, several studies had more than one control and/or intervention group. Hence the number of groups does not equal the number of studies. b Studies that were sourced from 12 systematic reviews. c Study originating from an ICU in Canada of the United States of America. d Use of protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP) for control group patients. e Data median and inter-quartile range (IQR).
Table 3. Contrast-based versus arms-based analyses a.
Table 3. Contrast-based versus arms-based analyses a.
Non-AntimicrobialAntisepticAntibiotic
summary95% CI (n)summary95% CI (n)summary95% CI (n)
Overall VAP b
Contrast-based odds ratio0.730.61 to 0.86 (56)0.530.34 to 0.81 (11)0.390.33 to 0.46 (28)
Arms-based (SROC)
  • DOR
0.710.6 to 0.84 (56)0.520.34 to 0.8 (11)0.390.32 to 0.47 (28)
  • control (mean %)
2118 to 23 2519 to 343428 to 39
  • intervention (mean %)
1513 to 19 1611 to 221613 to 20
Pseudomonas VAP c
Contrast-based odds ratio0.80.67 to 0.95 (54)0.650.42 to 1.01 (11)0.430.31 to 0.6 (25)
Arms-based (SROC)
  • DOR
0.770.62 to 0.96 (54)0.590.36 to 0.98 (11)0.410.28 to 0.59 (25)
  • control (mean %)
3.52.7 to 4.5 2.81.6 to 4.95.84.2 to 8.1
  • intervention (mean %)
2.71.9 to 3.5 1.70.8 to 3.52.41.6 to 3.6
Acinetobacter VAP d
Contrast-based odds ratio0.850.62 to 1.16 (40)0.730.34 to 1.54 (7)0.60.38 to 0.93 (17)
Arms-based (SROC)
  • DOR
NA NA 0.610.31 to 1.2 (17)
  • control (mean %)
 2.31.3 to 4.2
  • intervention (mean %)
 1.40.7 to 2.7
S. aureus VAP e
Contrast-based odds ratio0.790.65 to 0.95 (53)0.480.31 to 0.74 (11)0.550.45 to 0.69 (27)
Arms-based (SROC)
  • DOR
0.650.51 to 0.83 (53)0.430.29 to 0.64 (11)0.580.43 to 0.79 (27)
  • control (mean %)
4.73.7 to 5.95.63.3 to 9.77.64.9 to 11.4
  • intervention (mean %)
3.12.2 to 4.32.41.1 to 5.34.52.9 to 7.1
a Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; DOR = diagnostic odds ratio. b The SROC analyses for overall VAP are displayed as Figure 2a–c. c The SROC analyses for Pseudomonas VAP are displayed as Figure 3a–c. d These estimates from were not available (= NA) as the SROC model failed to converge in the analysis of the non-antimicrobial and antiseptic groups for Acinetobacter VAP. e The SROC analyses for S. aureus VAP are displayed as Figure 4a–c.
Table 4. Arms-based meta-regression of VAP incidence for control and intervention groups a.
Table 4. Arms-based meta-regression of VAP incidence for control and intervention groups a.
Unadjusted ModelModel Adjusted for Mean LOS b
Coefficient95% CIpCoefficient95% CIp
Overall VAP
Constant−1.34−1.53 to −1.15<0.01−2.64−3.38 to −1.91<0.01
Non-antimicrobial Intervention−0.32−0.57 to −0.060.02−0.31−0.56 to −0.070.01
Antiseptic Control0.3−0.23 to 0.820.270.12−0.39 to 0.630.64
Antiseptic Intervention−0.65−1.14 to −0.160.01−0.41−0.94 to −0.110.12
Antibiotic Control0.670.33 to 1.01<0.010.470.14 to 0.810.01
Antibiotic Intervention−0.16−0.5 to 0.190.37−0.3−0.64 to 0.080.13
Year of Publication c 0.01−0.01 to 0.020.11
Majority Quality Score d 0.03−0.21 to 0.220.83
LOS (log transformed) 0.540.31 to 0.77<0.01
Pseudomonas VAP
Constant−3.13−3.36 to −2.89<0.01−3.94−4.8 to −3.1<0.01
Non-antimicrobial Intervention−0.34−0.68 to 0.000.05−0.28−0.58 to −0.020.07
Antiseptic Control0.02−0.63 to 0.660.960.03−0.58 to 0.640.93
Antiseptic Intervention−0.67−1.28 to −0.060.03−0.3−0.94 to 0.340.36
Antibiotic Control0.50.08 to 0.880.010.420.03 to 0.820.04
Antibiotic Intervention−0.39−0.84 to 0.060.09−0.52−0.95 to −0.090.02
Year of Publication c −0.01−0.02 to 0.010.16
Majority Quality Score d −0.07−0.36 to 0.230.66
LOS (log transformed) 0.420.15 to 0.69<0.01
Acinetobacter VAP
Constant−4.01−4.4 to −3.62<0.01−2.56−4.03 to −1.08<0.01
Non-antimicrobial Intervention−0.02−0.57 to 0.540.95−0.04−0.55 to 0.460.86
Antiseptic Control0.66−0.46 to 1.790.251.05−0.03 to 2.130.06
Antiseptic Intervention−0.43−1.44 to 0.590.410.51−0.61 to 1.630.37
Antibiotic Control0.680.16 to 1.460.011.120.42 to 1.82<0.001
Antibiotic Intervention0.06−0.66 to 0.780.870.32−0.41 to 1.060.39
Year of Publication c 0.02−0.01 to 0.040.1
Majority Quality Score d −0.71−1.23 to −0.20.01
LOS (log transformed) −0.17−0.65 to 0.300.47
S. aureus VAP
Constant−2.91−3.2 to −2.65<0.01−4.96−5.98 to −3.95<0.01
Non-antimicrobial Intervention−0.36−0.72 to −0.010.05−0.36−0.71 to −0.020.04
Antiseptic Control0.43−0.25 to 1.10.220.05−0.64 to 0.730.89
Antiseptic Intervention−0.62−1.27 to 0.040.06−0.76−1.49 to −0.030.04
Antibiotic Control0.570.12 to 1.020.010.22−0.23 to 0.680.33
Antibiotic Intervention0.28−0.16 to 0.730.21−0.18−0.63 to 0.270.44
Year of Publication c 0.01−0.01 to 0.020.84
Majority Quality Score d 0.340.01 to 0.660.04
LOS (log transformed) 0.710.39 to 1.03<0.01
a. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; LOS = length of stay. b. Findings obtained from meta-regression limited to RCCTs sourced from Cochrane reviews were similar. c. Year of publication centered on 1980. d. Majority quality scores were based on the score as rated in the original Cochrane review source documents.
Table 5. Comparison with previous antimicrobial-based prevention effect size estimates.
Table 5. Comparison with previous antimicrobial-based prevention effect size estimates.
Antiseptic-BasedAntibiotic-Based
Coefficient95% CI;n aRef.Coefficient95% CI;n aRef.
VAP or RTI (Overall)
RTIRR: 0.760.62 to 0.9118[98,99]OR: 0.280.2 to 0.3816[100]
VAPOR: 0.680.53 to 0.8721[122]RR: 0.430.35 to 0.5317[101]
NP/RTIRR: 0.730.58 to 0.9216[126]RR: 0.440.36 to 0.5422[118]
VAPOR: 0.530.34 to 0.8111This studyOR: 0.390.33 to 0.4628This study
VAPDOR: 0.520.34 to 0.811This studyDOR: 0.390.32 to 0.4728This study
Abbreviations: OR = odds ratio; RR = risk ratio; DOR = diagnostic odds ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; RTI = respiratory tract infection; NP = nosocomial pneumonia; VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia; n = number of studies. a. n is number of studies.
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

Hurley, J.C. Arms-Based Meta-Analysis of Microbiological Endpoints of 88 VAP Prevention Studies Using Antimicrobial Versus Non-Antimicrobial Strategies—Towards ‘VAP-Zero’? Antibiotics 2026, 15, 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020221

AMA Style

Hurley JC. Arms-Based Meta-Analysis of Microbiological Endpoints of 88 VAP Prevention Studies Using Antimicrobial Versus Non-Antimicrobial Strategies—Towards ‘VAP-Zero’? Antibiotics. 2026; 15(2):221. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020221

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hurley, James C. 2026. "Arms-Based Meta-Analysis of Microbiological Endpoints of 88 VAP Prevention Studies Using Antimicrobial Versus Non-Antimicrobial Strategies—Towards ‘VAP-Zero’?" Antibiotics 15, no. 2: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020221

APA Style

Hurley, J. C. (2026). Arms-Based Meta-Analysis of Microbiological Endpoints of 88 VAP Prevention Studies Using Antimicrobial Versus Non-Antimicrobial Strategies—Towards ‘VAP-Zero’? Antibiotics, 15(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020221

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