The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Economic Impact of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Large Matched Cohort
Open accessAbstract
Objective.: To evaluate the economic impact of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) on length of stay and hospital costs. Design.: Retrospective matched cohort study. Setting.: Premier database of hospitals in the United States. Patients.: Eligible patients were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), received mechanical ventilation for ≥2 calendar-days, and were discharged between October 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009. Methods.: VAP was defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), code 997.31 and ventilation charges for ≥2 calendar-days. We matched patients with VAP to patients without VAP by propensity score on the basis of demographics, administrative data, and severity of illness. Cost was based on provider perspective and procedural cost accounting methods. Results.: Of 88,689 eligible patients, 2,238 (2.5%) had VAP; the incidence rate was 1.27 per 1,000 ventilation-days. In the matched cohort, patients with VAP (n = 2,144) had longer mean durations of mechanical ventilation (21.8 vs 10.3 days), ICU stay (20.5 vs 11.6 days), and hospitalization (32.6 vs 19.5 days; all P< .0001) than patients without VAP (n = 2,144). Mean hospitalization costs were $99,598 for patients with VAP and $59,770 for patients without VAP (P< .0001), resulting in an absolute difference of $39,828. Patients with VAP had a lower in-hospital mortality rate than patients without VAP (482/2,144 [22.5%] vs 630/2,144 [29.4%]; P<.0001). Conclusions.: Our findings suggest that VAP continues to occur as defined by the new specific ICD-9 code and is associated with a statistically significant resource utilization burden, which underscores the need for cost-effective interventions to minimize the occurrence of this complication. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(3):250-256
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kalil, A. C., Metersky, M. L., Klompas, M., Muscedere, J., Sweeney, D. A., Palmer, L. B., Napolitano, L. M., O'Grady, N. P., Bartlett, J. G., Carratalà, J., et al. (2016) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw353 · Cited by 3,892
Robotically Assisted vs Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Among Women With Benign Gynecologic Disease
Wright, J. D., Ananth, C. V., Lewin, S. N., Burke, W. M., Lu, Y.-S., Neugut, A. I., Herzog, T. J., & Hershman, D. L. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.186 · Cited by 573
Torres, A., Zhong, N., Pachl, J., Timsit, J.-F., Kollef, M., Chen, Z., Song, J., Taylor, D., Laud, P. J., Stone, G. G., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30747-8 · Cited by 441
Self-citationBarbier, F., Andremont, A., Wolff, M., & Bouadma, L. (2013) · Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1097/mcp.0b013e32835f27be · Cited by 281
Hanretty, A. M., & Gallagher, J. C. (2018) · Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · doi:10.1002/phar.2118 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Kollef, M. H., Hamilton, C. W., & Ernst, F. R.
- Venue
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 250-256
- ISSN
- 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
- 1559-6834
- OpenAlex
- W2096988592
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Economic Impact of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Large Matched Cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/664049
- The paper
- Kollef, M. H., Hamilton, C. W., & Ernst, F. R. (2012). Economic Impact of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Large Matched Cohort. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1086/664049
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.