PURPOSE: To determine whether the practice of not routinely changing ventilator circuits in patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation is associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups, ventilator circuits were routinely changed every 7 days for the control group (39) and every 14 days for the experimental group (40) over a period of 1 yr (April 1, 2009-March 31, 2010). Pediatric patients (age 17 yr or less) were not included. VAP was diagnosed by the criteria of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Incidence of VAP and characteristics of infection were evaluated. RESULTS: In the experimental group, 2 episodes of pneumonia were observed in 40 patients and 1,322 ventilator days. The rate of VAP was 1.5 per 1,000 ventilator days. There was 1 episode of pneumonia in 39 patients and 481 ventilator days for the control group. The rate of VAP was 2.1 per 1,000 ventilator days. The difference between both groups was not significant (p=.695). CONCLUSION: Extending ventilator circuit change interval from 7 days to 14 days does not increase the risk for VAP.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Female ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/*epidemiology ; Risk Factors ; Sputum/microbiology ; Time Factors ; Ventilators, Mechanical

BACKGROUND: Because cosmetic laser treatments are getting popular, post-laser wound care becomes more important. Currently, topical moisturizers are reported to be sufficient to accelerate re-epithelialization and reduce downtime in post-laser wound care. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the effects of the moisturizer APDDR-1001 for post-laser wound care, after ablative fractional laser on the face. METHODS: In this double-blind, split-face study, 41 patients with photo-aged face received ablative fractional laser. They were divided into two groups, APDDR-1001 and vehicle (group 1) or control moisturizer (group 2), which were applied to the opposite sides of the face for 1 week after the laser treatment. The treatment efficacy was evaluated by the transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema index, investigator's assessment for recovery in erythema and overall improvement of the wound. Subjects ranked irritating symptoms and overall satisfaction ratings in the overall improvement. RESULTS: APDDR-1001 was well-tolerated and showed improvement in the erythema index and TEWL during the 7 days of treatment. In group 2, improvement in erythema graded by investigators was significantly higher for APDDR-1001 on day 3 (p<0.05). The overall improvement of wound ranked by investigators was significantly higher for APDDR-1001, compared with the controls in both groups. Subjective assessment demonstrated significantly less erythema (p=0.043), edema (p=0.041) and overall satisfaction ratings in the overall improvement (p<0.048) with APDDR-1001; however, no differences were detected in pain and edema between APDDR-1001 and vehicle (group 1). In group 2, subjects ranked 'much or very much improved' in 75 % of APDDR-1001 side and 55% of control moisturizer side. No significant differences in erythema, edema, pain and itching were reported between APDDR-1001 and control moisturizer in group 2. CONCLUSION: The moisturizer APDDR-1001 demonstrated effective improvements in wound healing and subjective symptoms after ablative fractional laser therapy.
Cosmetics ; Edema ; Erythema ; Humans ; Laser Therapy ; Pruritus ; Re-Epithelialization ; Research Personnel ; Treatment Outcome ; Wound Healing