Rationale: The clinical relevance of Aspergillus-positive endotracheal aspirates in critically ill patients is difficult to assess. Objectives: We externally validate a clinical algorithm to discriminate Aspergillus colonization from putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in this patient group. Methods: We performed a multicenter (n = 30) observational study including critically ill patients with one or more Aspergillus-positive endotracheal aspirate cultures (n = 524). The diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm was evaluated using 115 patients with histopathologic data, considered the gold standard. Subsequently, the diagnostic workout of the algorithm was compared on the total cohort (n = 524), with the categorization based on the diagnostic criteria of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group. Measurements and Main Results: Among 115 histopathology-controlled patients, 79 had proven aspergillosis. The algorithm judged 86 of 115 cases to have putative aspergillosis. This diagnosis was confirmed in 72 and rejected in 14 patients. The algorithm judged 29 patients to have Aspergillus colonization. This was confirmed in 22 and rejected in 7 patients. The algorithm had a specificity of 61% and a sensitivity of 92%. The positive and negative predictive values were 61 and 92%, respectively. In the total cohort (n = 524), 79 patients had proven invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (15.1%). According to the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group criteria, 32 patients had probable aspergillosis (6.1%) and 413 patients were not classifiable (78.8%). The algorithm judged 199 patients to have putative aspergillosis (38.0%) and 246 to have Aspergillus colonization (46.9%). Conclusions: The algorithm demonstrated favorable operating characteristics to discriminate Aspergillus respiratory tract colonization from invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients.

Introduction: Burn injury is a serious pathology, potentially leading to severe morbidity and significant mortality, but it also has a considerable health-economic impact. The aim of this study was to describe the European hospitalized population with severe burn injury, including the incidence, etiology, risk factors, mortality, and causes of death. Methods: The systematic literature search (1985 to 2009) involved PubMed, the Web of Science, and the search engine Google. The reference lists and the Science Citation Index were used for hand searching (snowballing). Only studies dealing with epidemiologic issues (for example, incidence and outcome) as their major topic, on hospitalized populations with severe burn injury (in secondary and tertiary care) in Europe were included. Language restrictions were set on English, French, and Dutch. Results: The search led to 76 eligible studies, including more than 186,500 patients in total. The annual incidence of severe burns was 0.2 to 2.9/10,000 inhabitants with a decreasing trend in time. Almost 50% of patients were younger than 16 years, and ~60% were male patients. Flames, scalds, and contact burns were the most prevalent causes in the total population, but in children, scalds clearly dominated. Mortality was usually between 1.4% and 18% and is decreasing in time. Major risk factors for death were older age and a higher total percentage of burned surface area, as well as chronic diseases. (Multi) organ failure and sepsis were the most frequently reported causes of death. The main causes of early death (<48 hours) were burn shock and inhalation injury. Conclusions: Despite the lack of a large-scale European registration of burn injury, more epidemiologic information is available about the hospitalized population with severe burn injury than is generally presumed. National and international registration systems nevertheless remain necessary to allow better targeting of prevention campaigns and further improvement of cost-effectiveness in total burn care.

Mainly due to its extremely vulnerable population of critically ill patients, and the high use of (invasive) procedures, the intensive care unit (ICU) is the epicenter of infections. These infections are associated with an important rise in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. The additional problem of multidrug-resistant pathogens boosts the adverse impact of infections in ICUs. Several factors influence the rapid spread of multidrug-resistant pathogens in the ICU, e.g., new mutations, selection of resistant strains, and suboptimal infection control. Among gram-positive organisms, the most important resistant microorganisms in the ICU are currently methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. In gram-negative bacteria, the resistance is mainly due to the rapid increase of extended-spectrum Beta-lactamases (ESBLs) in Klebsiella pneumonia, Escherichia coli, and Proteus species and high level third-generation cephalosporin Beta-lactamase resistance among Enterobacter spp. and Citrobacter spp., and multidrug resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species. To conclude, additional efforts are needed in the future to slow down the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Constant evaluation of current practice on basis of trends in MDR and antibiotic consumption patterns is essential to make progress in this problematic matter.

Summary: Background: Comorbidities may have an important impact on survival, and comorbidity scores are often implemented in studies assessing prognosis. The Charlson Comorbidity index is most widely used, yet several adaptations have been published, all using slightly different conversions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding.Objective: To evaluate which coding should be used to assess and quantify comorbidity for the Charlson Comorbidity Index for registry-based research, in particular if older ICD versions will be used.Methods: A systematic literature search was used to identify adaptations and modifications of the ICD-coding of the Charlson Comorbidity Index for general purpose in adults, published in English. Back-translation to ICD version 8 and version 9 was conducted by means of the ICD-code converter of Statistics Sweden.Results: In total, 16 studies were identified reporting ICD-adaptations of the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The Royal College of Surgeons in the United Kingdom combined 5 versions into an adapted and updated version which appeared appropriate for research purposes. Their ICD-10 codes were back-translated into ICD-9 and ICD-8 according to their proposed adaptations, and verified with previous versions of the Charlson Comorbidity Index.Conclusion: Many versions of the Charlson Comorbidity Index are used in parallel, so clear reporting of the version, exact ICD- coding and weighting is necessary to obtain transparency and reproducibility in research. Yet, the version of the Royal College of Surgeons is up-to-date and easy-to-use, and therefore an acceptable co-morbidity score to be used in registry-based research especially for surgical patients.