Article Data

  • Views 626
  • Dowloads 156

Original Research

Open Access

Evaluation of a clinical pulmonary infection score in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia


1,Uludağ University School of Medicine Depart-ment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation Gorukle Campus

2,Uludağ University School of Medicine Depart-ment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

3,Uludağ University School of Medicine Depart-ment of Thoracic Surgery

DOI: 10.22514/SV71.042012.6 Vol.7,Issue 1,April 2012 pp.32-37

Published: 30 April 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): FERDA KAHVECI E-mail:


The most important dilemma in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) based on only clinical findings is overdiagnosis. The aim of the study is to prospectively evaluate the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) in relation to VAP diagnosis.

Design. Prospective, in a cohort of mechanically ventilated patients.

Setting. The intensive care unit of a university hospital.

Patients. Fifty patients, on mechanical ventilation therapy for more than 48 hours, suspected of having VAP were enrolled in the study and bacteriologic confirmation was done by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) culture.

Interventions. Bronchoscopy with BAL fluid culture after establishing a clinical suspicion of VAP in patients having no prior antibiotic therapy or no change in current antibiotic therapy within last three days before BAL. 

CPIS scores during diagnosis were 6±2 (3-9) (median±QR, maximum-minimum) and it was 7±2 (2-9) at the 72nd hour, in 41 cases with a diagnosis of VAP. In cases with no diagnosis of VAP, the CPIS scores were found to be 6±2 (4-8) and 5±3 (2-7), respectively. There was no significant difference between the VAP group and the non-VAP group at diagnosis, but was significant at 72nd hour (respectively, p=0.551 and p=0.025).

CPIS scores during diagnosis were 6±3 (4-8) (median± QR, maximum-minimum) and 7±4 (2-8) at the 72nd hour, in 14 cases with a diagnosis of early-onset VAP. In cases with a diagnosis of late-onset VAP, the CPIS scores were found to be 6±2 (3-9) and 7±2 (3-9), respectively. There was no significant difference between the early-onset VAP group and the late-onset VAP group. In conclusion, the CPIS results should be evaluated carefully in the clinical setting during the diagnosis.


ventilator associated pneumonia, CPIS, VAP diagnosis

Cite and Share

EMRE GULER,FERDA KAHVECI,HALIS AKALIN,MELDA SINIRTAS,SAMI BAYRAM,BERIN OZCAN. Evaluation of a clinical pulmonary infection score in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Signa Vitae. 2012. 7(1);32-37.


1. Pingleton SK, Fagon JY, Leeper KV. Patient selection for clinical investigation of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Criteria for evaluating diagnostic techniques. Chest 1992;102(suppl):553-6.

2. Mayhall CG. Ventilator-associated pneumonia or not? Contemporary diagnosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:200-4.

3. Chastre J, Fagon JY. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165(7):867-903.

4. Rello J, Ollendorf DA, Oster G, Vera-Llonch M, Bellm L, Redman R, Kollef MH. VAP Outcomes Scientific Advisory Group. Epidemiology and outcomes of ventilator associated pneumonia in a large US database. Chest 2002;122(6):2115-21.

5. George DL. Epidemiology of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care unit patients. Clin Chest Med 1995;16(1):29-44.

6. Grossman RF, Fein A. Evidence-based assessment of diagnostic tests for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2000;117(suppl):177-81.

7. Kollef MH, Ward S. The influence of mini-BAL cultures on patient outcomes. Implications for the antibiotic management of ventilator asso-ciated pneumonia. Chest 1998;113:412-20.

8. Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2002;122:262-8.

9. Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Milli N, Janssens JP, Lew PD, Suter PM. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and nonbronchoscopic “blind” bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;143:1121-9.

10. Rello J, Paiva JS, Baraibar J, Barcenilla F, Bodi M, Castander D, et al. International conference fort he development of consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2001;120:955-70.

11. Bergmans DCJJ, Bonten MJM, De Leeuw PW, Stobberingh EE. Reproduducibility of quantitative cultures of endotracheal aspirates from mechanically ventilated patients. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35:796-8.

12. Gomes JCP, Pedreire WL, Araujo EMPA, Soriano FG, Negri EM, Antonângelo L , et al. Impact of BAL in the management of pneumonia with treatment failure. Chest 2000;118:1739-46.

13. Morris AJ, Taner DC, Reler LB. Rejection criteria for endotracheal aspirates from adults. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:1027-9.

14. Baselski VS, El-Torky M, Coalson JJ, Griffin JP. The standardization of criteria for processing and interpreting laboratory specimens in patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1992;102;571S-9S.

15. Meduri GU, Chastre J. The standardization of bronchoscopic techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1992;102(Suppl):557-64.

16. Langer M, Cigada M, Mandelli M, Mosconi P, Tognoni G. Early-onset pneumonia: A multicenter study in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 1987;140:342-6.

17. Luna CM, Blanzaco D, Niederman MS, Matarucco W, Baredes NC, Desmery P, et al. Resolition of ventilator-associated pneumonia: Pros-pective evaluation of the clinical pulmonary infection score as an early clinical predictor of outcome. Crit Care Med 2003;31:676-82.

18. Fagon JY, Chastre J, Wolff M, Gervais C, Parer-Aubas S , Stéphan F, et al. Invasive and noninvasive strategies for management of suspec-ted ventilator-associated pneumonia : a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:621-30.

19. Ruiz M, Torres A, Ewig S, Marcos MA, Alcon A, Lledó R , et al. Noninvasive versus invasive microbial investigation in ventilator-associated pneumonia: evaluation of outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:119-25.

20. Croce MA, Swanson JM, Magnotti LJ, Claridge JA, Weinberg JA, Wood GC, et al. The futility of the clinical p􀀂lmonary infection scores in trauma patients. J Trauma 2006;60:523-8.

21. Fartoukh M, Maitre B, Honore S, Cerf C, Zahar J-R, Brun-Buisson C. Diagnosing pneumonia during mechanical ventilation. The clinical pulmonary infection score revisited. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:173-9.

22. Schurink CAM, Van Nieuwenhoven CA, Jacobs JA, Rozenberg-Arska M, Joore HCA, Buskens E, et al. Clinical pulmonary infection score for ventilator-asociated pneumonia: accuracy and inter-observer variability. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:217-24.

23. Luyt CE, Chastre J, Fagon J-Y, the VAP Trial Group. Value of the clinical pulmonary infection score fort he identification and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:844-52.

24. Pham TN, Neff MJ, Simmons JM, Gibran NS, Heimbach DM, Klein MB. The clinical pulmonary infection scor poorly predicts pneumonia in patients with burns. J Burn Care Res 2007;28:76-9.

25. Fabregas N, Ewig S, Torres A, El-Ebiary M, Ramirez J, de La Bellacasa JP, et al. Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post-mortem lung biopsies. Thorax 1999;54:867-73.

26. Papazian L, Thomas P, Garbe L, Guignon I, Thirion X, Charrel J, et al. Bronchoscopic or blind sampling techniques the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;152:1982-91.

27. Johanson WG, Pierce AK, Sanford JP, Thomas GD. Nosocomial respiratory infections with gram-negative bacilli: the significance of colo-nization of the respiratory tract. Ann Intern Med 1972;77:701-6.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index The CAS Source Index (CASSI) Search Tool is an online resource that can quickly identify or confirm journal titles and abbreviations for publications indexed by CAS since 1907, including serial and non-serial scientific and technical publications.

IndexCopernicus The Index Copernicus International (ICI) Journals database’s is an international indexation database of scientific journals. It covered international scientific journals which divided into general information, contents of individual issues, detailed bibliography (references) sections for every publication, as well as full texts of publications in the form of attached files (optional). For now, there are more than 58,000 scientific journals registered at ICI.

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research The Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 and it works in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The overall objectives of the Foundation are to promote and develop health education and research programs.

Scopus: CiteScore 0.5(2019) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Embase Embase (often styled EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE), produced by Elsevier, is a biomedical and pharmacological database of published literature designed to support information managers and pharmacovigilance in complying with the regulatory requirements of a licensed drug.

Submission Turnaround Time