Head of Bed Elevation and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
=========================================================

* Brian G Harbrecht

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common hospital-acquired infection.1 Criteria for the diagnosis of VAP have been published2 and widely adopted by hospital infection control surveillance programs. A number of clinical factors can make the diagnosis of VAP difficult in selected patient populations and bring the applicability of these diagnostic criteria into question.1,3,4 These difficulties in determining how frequently VAP occurs, however, have not prevented the disease from being closely scrutinized. The impact of VAP on patient mortality may be difficult to estimate, but the development of VAP appears to increase the length of hospitalization and increase healthcare costs.1,5,6 The consideration of VAP as a “preventable” infection by some healthcare regulatory agencies, and the impact of this designation on reimbursement have heightened interest in improving accuracy in the diagnosis and reporting of VAP.1–4 These initiatives have also stimulated efforts to prevent or minimize the frequency of VAP, and a variety of “ventilator bundles” have been developed.7,8 Guidelines for hand hygiene, oral care, ventilator circuit tube changes, sedation, and spontaneous breathing trials are included in many such bundles. Elevation of the head of the bed (HOB) to minimize aspiration, particularly in patients receiving enteral nutrition, is also a common component of ICU ventilator bundles.9

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Wolken et al10 have tested a simple hypothesis. Does a device that provides continuous monitoring of the position of the HOB with continuous nursing feedback improve adherence to maintaining HOB elevation > 30°? They demonstrate that continuous feedback of HOB position to the bedside nurse, using an in-room display and alarm, improved adherence in keeping the HOB properly positioned, compared with providing continuous monitoring to a central location. They also demonstrate that intermittent checks of the HOB position overestimate adherence, compared to total time spent at > 30°, when measured continuously with their device. Both of these conclusions make intuitive sense and are readily believable. If I provide a constant reminder for someone to perform a task, I have no doubt that they will perform that task more frequently than if I provide infrequent reminders. This is a fact with which every educator, administrator, and parent is familiar. An important unanswered question, however, is whether the documented 15% improvement in HOB adherence using continuous feedback results in a reduction of VAP in their ICU. The authors measure a statistically significant improvement in the process of care. Whether or not this increase in HOB elevation is clinically important remains unknown.

The authors imply that improving HOB adherence will lower their VAP rate, and if the next study will be designed to evaluate this relationship, the authors should be encouraged to complete it. One wonders what the optimal adherence rate should be for HOB elevation over a 24 hour period. The HOB will be lowered for patient care duties such as bathing, changing linens, changing patient position, and preparing for patient transfers. I suspect that if I included an ICU nurse as a coauthor, several other tasks that require lowering the HOB could be added to this list. Whether the adherence rate with HOB elevation should be more than the authors' measured rate of 76% of monitored hours remains an unanswered question. In the complex environment of the ICU, demonstrating an impact on VAP rate with a single intervention is a challenge. There are numerous factors that can influence the rate of VAP in any given ICU, including the type of patient (medical, surgical), severity of illness, use of ventilator protocols or bundles, sedation practices, anti-ulcer prophylaxis practices, use of early or delayed tracheostomy, nutrition practices, and use of subglottic suctioning tubes, just to name a few. The baseline rate of VAP will also impact the ability to detect a change with any single intervention. It has been a substantial challenge to conclusively demonstrate reductions in VAP with the use of multi-component ventilator bundles, much less a single component of a multi-component bundle.

Do the issues discussed above reduce the value of this device? Not necessarily. Elevating the HOB is a simple, inexpensive maneuver that may often be neglected, and increasing time spent upright is usually a good thing for hospitalized patients. This device may assist providers in increasing the time spent with the HOB elevated, particularly in those units where getting practitioners to elevate the HOB is problematic. Should all ICU beds have an alarm to notify providers that the HOB is < 30°? If it provides a real benefit to the patient in terms of outcome, then such an addition will be useful. If the device increases cost of the bed, increases the time/expense spent monitoring/validating the device, or distracts providers from the essential tasks involved in caring for critically ill patients without materially affecting the occurrence of VAP, quality control departments may benefit from this system, but the patient will not. The authors have developed an imaginative solution to assist with keeping the HOB elevated. Future studies will hopefully define if improved adherence with HOB elevation translates into a tangible benefit to the patient.

## Footnotes

*   Correspondence: Brian G Harbrecht MD, Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY 40292, Phone: 502-852-5675, Fax: 502-852-8915, E-mail: briang.harbrecht{at}louisville.edu.
*   The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

*   See the Original Study on Page [537](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/volpage/57/537)

*   Copyright © 2012 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

## References

1.  1. Minei JP, Nathens AB, West M, Harbrecht BG, Moore EE, Shapiro MB, et al. Inflammation and the host response to injury, a large-scale collaborative project: patient-oriented research core-standard operating procedures for clinical care II. guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the trauma patient. J Trauma 2006;60(5):1106–1113.
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16688078&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237678100038&link_type=ISI) 

2.  2. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(5):309–332. Erratum in: Am J Infect Control 2008;36(9):655. 
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18538699&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256535100001&link_type=ISI) 

3.  3. Wahl WL, Zalewski C, Hemmila MR. Pneumonia in the surgical intensive care unit: is every one preventable? Surgery 2011;150(4):665–672.
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22000178&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 

4.  4. Thomas BW, Maxwell RA, Dart BW, Hartmann EH, Bates DL, Mejia VA, et al. Errors in administrative-reported ventilator-associated pneumonia rates: are never events really so? Am Surg 2011;77(8):998–1002.
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21944513&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 

5.  5. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Bonten MJ. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality: a systematic review of observational studies. Crit Care Med 2009;37(10):2709–2718.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ab8655&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19885994&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270234700005&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6. Umscheid CA, Mitchell MD, Doshi JA, Agarwal R, Williams K, Brennan PJ. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(2):101–114.
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21460463&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 

7.  7. Bouza E, Burillo A. Advances in the prevention and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2009;22(4):345–351.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/QCO.0b013e32832d8910&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19506478&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267969000003&link_type=ISI) 

8.  8. Blot S, Rello J, Vogelaers D. What is new in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia? Curr Opin Pulm Med 2011;17(3):155–159.
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21326100&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 

9.  9. Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, Nicolas JM, Nogue S, Ferrer M. Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized trial. Lancet 1999;354(9193):1851–1858.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(98)12251-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10584721&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F57%2F4%2F659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000083909100010&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10. Wolken RF, Woodruff RJ, Smith J, Albert RK, Douglas IS. Observational study of head of bed elevation adherence using a continuous monitoring system in a medical intensive care unit. Respir Care 2012;57(4):537–543.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoicmVzcGNhcmUiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNTcvNC81MzciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMzoiL3Jlc3BjYXJlLzU3LzQvNjU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)