Effectiveness of oral rinse with chlorhexidine in preventing nosocomial respiratory tract infections among intensive care unit patients

Chlorhexidine is not effective at any concentration in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Oral chlorhexidine has been widely used for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in the critical care setting; however, previous studies and evidence synthesis have generated inconsistent findings. Our study aims to investigate if different concentrations of oral chlorhexidine may be effective in preventing such complication in intensive care unit patients.

METHODS

After pre-registration (Open Science Framework: 8CUKF), we conducted a network meta-analysis with the following PICOS: adult patients (age > 18 years old) undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation admitted in ICU (P); any concentration of chlorhexidine used for oral hygiene (I); placebo, sham intervention, usual care, or no intervention (C); rate of VAP (primary outcome), mechanical ventilation length, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality (secondary outcomes) (O); randomized controlled trials (S). We used the following database: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and EMBASE without any limitation in publication date or language.

RESULTS

Chlorhexidine did not demonstrate any significant advantage over the control group in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia or reducing mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, or overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Chlorhexidine oral decontamination does not reduce the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients and its routine use could not be recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: Open Science Framework: 8CUKF.

Does chlorhexidine reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in ICU patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate chlorhexidine's efficacy in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

SETTINGS

The data were obtained from Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

Only mechanically ventilated patients for at least 48h were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomized clinical trials applying any dosage form of chlorhexidine were eligible.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

The relative risk (RR) of the VAP incidence and all-cause mortality was assessed using the random-effects model. The mean difference in days of mechanical ventilation duration and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay were also appraised.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1233 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The oral application of CHX reduced the incidence of VAP (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55, 0.97]) and did not show an increase in all-cause mortality (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.96, 1.32]).

CONCLUSIONS

CHX proved effective to prevent VAP. However, a conclusion on mortality rates could not be drawn because the quality of the evidence was very low for this outcome.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Bacterial Effects of Mouthwashes in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mouthwashes are used as oral care for critical care patients to prevent infections. However, there are conflicting data concerning whether mouthwashes are needed as a part of daily oral care for critical care patients. This study aimed to evaluate the anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial effects of mouthwashes for critical care patients. The PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature databases were searched by descriptors combining population (intensive care unit patients) and intervention (mouthwashes). After the screening, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial effects of mouthwashes in patient critical care were included. From the 1531 articles, 16 RCTs satisfied the eligibility criteria for systematic review and 10 were included in the meta-analyses. A significant difference was found in the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (odds ratio [OR] 0.53, 95% confidential interval [95% CI] 0.33 to 0.86) between the mouthwash and placebo groups, while no significant difference was found in the mortality (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.92 to 2.40); the duration of mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.10, 95%CI -2.01 to 1.81); and the colonization of Staphylococcus aureus (OR 0.88, 95%CI 0.34 to 2.30), Escherichia coli (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.50 to 2.82), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (OR 1.16, 95%CI 0.27 to 4.91) between the two groups. In conclusion, mouthwashes were effective in decreasing the incidence of VAP. Thus, mouthwashes can be used as part of daily oral care for critical care patients.

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Chlorhexidine for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Objective

To explore the efficacy and safety of chlorhexidine oral care in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) by means of meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials on the effect of chlorhexidine oral care on the incidence of VAP in patients on mechanical ventilation were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase from May 1, 2022. Two researchers independently screened and included the study, extracted the data, and evaluated the literature quality. RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

Meta-analysis of 13 included literature studies involving 1533 patients showed that oral care with chlorhexidine solution could reduce the incidence of VAP in patients with mechanical ventilation and the difference was statistically significant (RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.46, 0.82), P=0.04). However, the results showed that the incidence of VAP of low concentration (0.02%, 0.12%, and 0.2%) and high concentration (2%) of chlorhexidine in the intervention group was lower than that in the control group and the difference was statistically significant (RR = 0.70, 95% CI (0.51, 0.96), P=0.03; RR = 0.41, 95% CI (0.27, 0.62)). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.85, 1.21), P=0.87). There was no statistical significance in days ventilated or days in ICU between the two groups (RR = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.19, 0.16), P=0.84; RR = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.11, 0.14), P=0.85).

Conclusion

Existing evidence shows that chlorhexidine used for oral care of patients with mechanical ventilation can reduce the incidence of VAP, and high concentration of chlorhexidine (2%) or low concentration of chlorhexidine (0.02%, 0.12%, 0.2%) has a significant effect on the prevention of VAP. Considering the safety of clinical application, it is recommended to use 0.02%, 0.12%, and 0.2% chlorhexidine solution for oral care.

Death by Chocolate: The Palliative Management of Dysphagia

Background: Among patients seen by palliative care, dysphagia is prevalent and can lead to disturbing symptoms and challenges in medical decisions for patients and families. Case: Our patient, AP, an 88-year-old woman with a history of thyroid cancer and esophageal dysmotility, was nearing end of life. She wanted nothing more than to eat her chocolate cake in peace. This shocked her family and also presented multiple ethical and logistical issues for the medical team caring for her during an acute admission for hypoxia. Discussion: This case presents an opportunity to: review strategies for evaluating and diagnosing dysphagia; appraise evidenced based approach to the palliative management of dysphagia; and promote the education of families and staff regarding palliative options for care. Conclusion: Palliative care professionals can be instrumental in educating patients, families, other clinicians, including swallowing therapists, on how to enhance comfort and quality of life among patients with dysphagia.

Effect of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Use for Oral Care on Ventilator-Associated Respiratory Infections: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that the effect of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) use for oral care on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) is lacking. Evidence-based approaches to the prevention of VAP and VAT are of paramount importance for improving patients' outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to (1) compare the effect of 0.12% CHX use for oral care on preventing VAP and VAT with the placebo group, as well as (2) compare its effect on oral health and prevention of oral microbial colonization with the placebo group.

METHODS

Prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial performed in 2 intensive care units at a hospital. The sample comprised 57 mechanically ventilated adults randomly allocated to the 0.12% CHX group and the placebo group. Barnason's oral assessment guide was used to evaluate the oral health of both groups before oral care during the first 24 hr of tracheal intubation (Day 0) and at Day 2 and Day 3. Oropharyngeal secretion, endotracheal tube aspirate, and nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage samples were collected on Day 0 and Day 3.

RESULTS

The rate of VAT development was not statistically different between the groups (p = .318). However, a significant difference existed in the rate of VAP development (p = .043). The frequency of oropharyngeal colonization significantly decreased in the 0.12% CHX group compared with the placebo group at Day 3 (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

The use of 0.12% CHX for oral care could be effective for VAP prevention and reducing microbial colonization in mechanically ventilated patients.

Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, swab, toothbrush, or combination, together with suction of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral hygiene care (OHC) on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 25 February 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 25 February 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 25 February 2020), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 25 February 2020) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 25 February 2020). We also searched the VIP Database (January 2012 to 8 March 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, gel, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using the random-effects model of meta-analysis when data from four or more trials were combined.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 RCTs (5675 participants), which were conducted in various countries including China, USA, Brazil and Iran. We categorised these RCTs into five main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; CHX mouthrinse versus other oral care agents; toothbrushing (± antiseptics) versus no toothbrushing (± antiseptics); powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of other oral care agents used in OHC (other oral care agents versus placebo/usual care, or head-to-head comparisons between other oral care agents). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in 31 trials and low in two, with the rest being unclear. Moderate-certainty evidence from 13 RCTs (1206 participants, 92% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, probably reduces the incidence of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 26% to about 18% (RR 0.67, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 66%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 12 (95% CI 7 to 128), i.e. providing OHC including CHX for 12 ventilated patients in intensive care would prevent one patient developing VAP. There was no evidence of a difference between interventions for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; P = 0.86, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -3.20 to 1.00 days; P = 0.30, I2 = 74%; 4 RCTs, 594 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD -0.89 days, 95% CI -3.59 to 1.82 days; P = 0.52, I2 = 69%; 5 RCTs, 627 participants; low-certainty evidence). Most studies did not mention adverse effects. One study reported adverse effects, which were mild, with similar frequency in CHX and control groups and one study reported there were no adverse effects. Toothbrushing (± antiseptics) may reduce the incidence of VAP (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; P = 0.01, I2 = 40%; 5 RCTs, 910 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is also some evidence that toothbrushing may reduce the duration of ICU stay (MD -1.89 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.27 days; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 749 participants), but this is very low certainty. Low-certainty evidence did not show a reduction in mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; P = 0.12, I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, 910 participants) or duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.43, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.30; P = 0.25, I2 = 46%; 4 RCTs, 810 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel, as part of OHC, probably reduces the incidence of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients from 26% to about 18%, when compared to placebo or usual care. We did not find a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of stay in the intensive care unit, although the evidence was low certainty. OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing may be more effective than OHC with antiseptics alone to reduce the incidence of VAP and the length of ICU stay, but, again, the evidence is low certainty. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Oropharyngeal Irrigation to Prevent Ventilator-Associated-Pneumonia: Comparing Potassium Permangenate with Chlorhexidine

Background:

Pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections among bedridden patients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Colonization of mouth and pharynx by pathogenic bacteria and their aspiration into the lower respiratory tract is an important step in pathogenesis of hospital-acquired pneumonia. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of chlorhexidine and potassium permanganate mouthwashes in preventing incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients in the ICU.

Methods:

This study is a clinical trial, conducted on 150 patients on ventilator in ICU. Patients were divided into three groups: Chlorhexidine group, potassium permanganate group, and control group. Mouthwashing three times a day, each time 5 min for 1 week by sterile gas with 10 cc solution of chlorhexidine, potassium permanganate, or placebo, was performed. Finally, pneumonia incidence was recorded, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. The data were analyzed by SPSS software version 20.

Results:

In the present study, 28 cases of pneumonia among 150 patients on ventilator were investigated. There were 15 (30%), 6 (12%), and 7 (14%) incidences of pneumonia in control, chlorhexidine, and permanganate group, respectively. Pneumonia incidence in these groups differed significantly (P = 0.041).

Conclusions:

The use of common mouthwashes, especially chlorhexidine solution, for washing oropharynx of ICU patients, can decrease pneumonia incidence, especially in patients under ventilation. Thus, washing and sterilizing mouth of patients with mouthwashes is recommended due to the high risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia in these patients.

Is it necessary to have a dentist within an intensive care unit team? Report of a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of dental treatment in improving oral health in critical patients.

METHODS

This randomised clinical trial was conducted in a general intensive care unit (ICU) at a tertiary care public facility from 1 January 2011 to 8 August 2013. Data from 254 adult patients staying in the ICU for 48 hours or more were analysed. The experimental group (n = 127) had access to dental treatment provided by a dentist four to five times a week, in addition to routine oral hygiene, whereas the control group (n = 127) had access only to routine oral hygiene, including topical application of chlorhexidine, provided by the ICU nursing staff. The baseline oral health status of the enrolled patients was poor and included edentulism, caries, gingivitis, periodontitis and residual roots. Dental treatment consisted of toothbrushing, tongue scraping, removal of calculus, scaling and root planing, caries restoration and tooth extraction.

RESULTS

The Oral Hygiene Index Simplified (OHI-S) and Gingival Index (GI) scores decreased in the experimental group but did not change significantly in the control group during the ICU stay. Dental treatment prevented most of the episodes of respiratory tract infections, as previously reported. No severe adverse events from the dental treatment were observed.

CONCLUSION

From an interprofessional perspective, our results support the idea of including dentists in the ICU team to improve oral health in critical patients and effectively prevent respiratory tract infections, in addition to the improvement achievable by applying chlorhexidine alone.

Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, toothbrush, or combination, together with aspiration of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral hygiene care on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 17 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 December 2015), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 December 2015), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 17 December 2015), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 17 December 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to 14 January 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 14 January 2013), Wan Fang Database (January 1984 to 14 January 2013) and VIP Database (January 2012 to 4 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 17 December 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from trials with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using random-effects models unless there were fewer than four studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 RCTs (6016 participants). There were four main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing; powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of oral care solutions. We assessed the overall risk of bias as low in five trials (13%), high in 26 trials (68%), and unclear in seven trials (18%). We did not consider the risk of bias to be serious when assessing the quality of evidence (GRADE) for VAP incidence, but we downgraded other outcomes for risk of bias.High quality evidence from 18 RCTs (2451 participants, 86% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 25% to about 19% (RR 0.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.61 to 0.89, P = 0.002, I2 = 31%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (95% CI 10 to 33), which indicates that for every 17 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of VAP would be prevented. There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.23, P = 0.18, I2 = 0%, 15 RCTs, 2163 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.09 days, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.55 days, P = 0.91, I2 = 36%, five RCTs, 800 participants, low quality evidence), or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD 0.21 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I2 = 9%, six RCTs, 833 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CHX on duration of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only two studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups.We are uncertain as to the effects of toothbrushing (± antiseptics) on the outcomes of VAP (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, P = 0.11, I2 = 64%, five RCTs, 889 participants, very low quality evidence) and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.09, P = 0.24, I2 = 0%, five RCTs, 889 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether toothbrushing affects duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, adverse effects, caregivers' preferences or cost.Only one trial (78 participants) compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush, providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review.Fifteen trials compared various other oral care solutions. There is very weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I2 = 74%, three studies, 356 participants, high risk of bias), and that saline rinse is more effective than saline swab (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62, P < 0.001, I2 = 84%, four studies, 488 participants, high risk of bias) in reducing VAP. Due to variation in comparisons and outcomes among trials, there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

OHC including chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel reduces the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients from 25% to about 19%. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. There is no evidence that OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing is different from OHC with antiseptics alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo, and saline rinse is more effective than saline swab in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.

Prospective observational study to compare oral topical metronidazole versus 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate to prevent nosocomial pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Nosocomial pneumonia is one of the most common health care-associated infections in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide, attributing to high morbidity and mortality. Our study aim is to investigate the effectiveness of oral hygiene with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and 0.08% metronidazole (MDE) influencing the microbiologic epidemiology and incidence of nonintubation pneumonia (NIP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

METHODS

Patients who stayed >48 hours in the emergency ICU between 2008 and 2012 were enrolled and provided oral hygiene by swabbing with 0.08% MDE twice daily until discharge or death during the first year (period M), whereas CHX was applied during the following 3 years (period C). The incidence and microbiologic epidemiology of NIP and VAP were studied.

RESULTS

There were 873 patients enrolled. There were 44 episodes of NIP and 25 episodes of VAP that occurred among 212 patients in period M, and 84 episodes of NIP and 49 episodes of VAP occurred among 661 patients in period C. Overall, the rate of NIP and VAP decreased year by year. Acinetobacter baumannii was the most frequently identified bacteria for NIP (22.9%) and VAP (25.3%), with an annual ascent. Few changes were observed on bacteria distribution for NIP and VAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral hygiene with CHX, having reduced the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia among critical ill patients, suggests a benefit of oral hygiene in decreasing the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, including VAP in ICUs, but not bacterial epidemiology.

Impact of chlorhexidine mouthwash prophylaxis on probable ventilator-associated pneumonia in a surgical intensive care unit

Background:

Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia is a healthcare goal. Although data is inconsistent, some studies suggest that oral chlorhexidine may decrease rates of pneumonia in mechanically-ventilated patients. We sought to assess the rate of pneumonia in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) pre and post implementation of routine chlorhexidine mouthwash prophylaxis.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including patients between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/2009 who did not receive chlorhexidine mouthwash compared to patients that received prophylactic chlorhexidine mouthwash between 3/1/2010 and 2/28/2011. The primary outcome of the study was rate of probable ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) for the pre-chlorhexidine implementation cohort compared to post-implementation, using the 2013 Center for Disease Control definitions. Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory cultures were screened for inclusion in the study. Secondary endpoints included duration of mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay. Statistical analysis was conducted by Fisher's exact test for nominal data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data.

Results:

A total of 1780 mechanically ventilated patients in the pre-chlorhexidine group and 1854 in the post-chlorhexidine group were screened for inclusion. Of the 601 mechanically ventilated patients that were further evaluated for inclusion; 158 patients (26.3%) had positive cultures and were included in the study (94 pre-group and 64 post-group). The rate of probable VAP was significantly decreased in the post-group compared to the pre-group (1.85% pre vs 0.81% post, P = 0.0082).

Conclusion:

Use of chlorhexidine mouthwash prophylaxis may reduce rates of probable VAP. Further study is warranted.

Microbial profiling of dental plaque from mechanically ventilated patients

Micro-organisms isolated from the oral cavity may translocate to the lower airways during mechanical ventilation (MV) leading to ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Changes within the dental plaque microbiome during MV have been documented previously, primarily using culture-based techniques. The aim of this study was to use community profiling by high throughput sequencing to comprehensively analyse suggested microbial changes within dental plaque during MV. Bacterial 16S rDNA gene sequences were obtained from 38 samples of dental plaque sampled from 13 mechanically ventilated patients and sequenced using the Illumina platform. Sequences were processed using Mothur, applying a 97 % gene similarity cut-off for bacterial species level identifications. A significant ‘microbial shift’ occurred in the microbial community of dental plaque during MV for nine out of 13 patients. Following extubation, or removal of the endotracheal tube that facilitates ventilation, sampling revealed a decrease in the relative abundance of potential respiratory pathogens and a compositional change towards a more predominantly (in terms of abundance) oral microbiota including Prevotella spp., and streptococci. The results highlight the need to better understand microbial shifts in the oral microbiome in the development of strategies to reduce VAP, and may have implications for the development of other forms of pneumonia such as community-acquired infection.

Oral care and nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review

To perform a systematic review of the literature on the control of oral biofilms and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, in addition to assessing and classifying studies as to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. The review was based on PubMed, LILACS, and Scopus databases, from January 1st, 2000 until December 31st, 2012. Studies evaluating oral hygiene care related to nosocomial infections in patients hospitalized in intensive care units were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Full published articles available in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, which approached chemical or mechanical oral hygiene techniques in preventing pneumonia, interventions performed, and their results were included. After analysis, the articles were classified according to level of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. A total of 297 abstracts were found, 14 of which were full articles that met our criteria. Most articles included a study group with chlorhexidine users and a control group with placebo users for oral hygiene in the prevention of pneumonia. All articles were classified as B in the level of evidence, and 12 articles were classified as 2B and two articles as 2C in grade of recommendation. It was observed that the control of oral biofilm reduces the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, but the fact that most articles had an intermediate grade of recommendation makes clear the need to conduct randomized controlled trials with minimal bias to establish future guidelines for oral hygiene in intensive care units.

Effectiveness of a Dental Care Intervention in the Prevention of Lower Respiratory Tract Nosocomial Infections among Intensive Care Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective.

To evaluate whether dental treatment may enhance oral antisepsis, thus preventing more effectively lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) among critically ill patients

Design.

Observer-blind randomized clinical trial.

Setting.

General intensive care unit (ICU) for adult patients.

Patients.

We analyzed data from 254 adult patients who stayed for at least 48 hours in the ICU.

Intervention.

Patients were randomized by means of rolling dice. The experimental group (n= 127) had access to dental care provided by a dental surgeon, 4–5 times a week. Besides routine oral hygiene, care also included teeth brushing, tongue scraping, removal of calculus, atraumatic restorative treatment of caries, and tooth extraction. The control group (n= 127) had access to routine oral hygiene only, which included the use of chlorhexidine as a mouth rinse, which was performed by the ICU nurse staff.

Results.

The primary study outcome was the LRTI incidence, which was 8.7% in the experimental group and 18.1% in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20–0.96];P= .04). Ventilator-associated pneumonia rates per 1,000 ventilator-days were 16.5 (95% CI, 9.8–29.5) in the control group and 7.6 (95% CI, 3.3–15.0) in the experimental group (P&lt; .05). Mortality rates were similar between both study groups: 31.5% in the control group versus 29.1% in the experimental group (adjusted RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.52–1.65];P= .796). No severe adverse events related to oral care were observed during the study.

Conclusion.

Dental treatment was safe and effective in the prevention of LRTI among critically ill patients who were expected to stay at least 48 hours in the ICU.

Trial registration.

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry, affiliated with the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trial Registry Platform: U1111-1152-2671.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2014;35(11):1342–1348

Effectiveness of a dental care intervention in the prevention of lower respiratory tract nosocomial infections among intensive care patients: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether dental treatment may enhance oral antisepsis, thus preventing more effectively lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) among critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Observer-blind randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

General intensive care unit (ICU) for adult patients.

PATIENTS

We analyzed data from 254 adult patients who stayed for at least 48 hours in the ICU.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized by means of rolling dice. The experimental group (n = 127) had access to dental care provided by a dental surgeon, 4-5 times a week. Besides routine oral hygiene, care also included teeth brushing, tongue scraping, removal of calculus, atraumatic restorative treatment of caries, and tooth extraction. The control group (n = 127) had access to routine oral hygiene only, which included the use of chlorhexidine as a mouth rinse, which was performed by the ICU nurse staff.

RESULTS

The primary study outcome was the LRTI incidence, which was 8.7% in the experimental group and 18.1% in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.96]; P = .04). Ventilator-associated pneumonia rates per 1,000 ventilator-days were 16.5 (95% CI, 9.8-29.5) in the control group and 7.6 (95% CI, 3.3-15.0) in the experimental group (P < .05). Mortality rates were similar between both study groups: 31.5% in the control group versus 29.1% in the experimental group (adjusted RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.52-1.65]; P = .796). No severe adverse events related to oral care were observed during the study.

CONCLUSION

Dental treatment was safe and effective in the prevention of LRTI among critically ill patients who were expected to stay at least 48 hours in the ICU.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry, affiliated with the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform: U1111-1152-2671.

Selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine for prevention of death in general intensive care: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect on mortality of selective digestive decontamination, selective oropharyngeal decontamination, and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine in adult patients in general intensive care units and to compare these interventions with each other in a network meta-analysis.

DESIGN

Systematic review, conventional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched to December 2012. Previous meta-analyses, conference abstracts, and key journals were also searched. We used pairwise meta-analyses to estimate direct evidence from intervention-control trials and a network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to combine direct and indirect evidence.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials that recruited adult patients in general intensive care units and studied selective digestive decontamination, selective oropharyngeal decontamination, or oropharyngeal chlorhexidine compared with standard care or placebo.

RESULTS

Selective digestive decontamination had a favourable effect on mortality, with a direct evidence odds ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.84). The direct evidence odds ratio for selective oropharyngeal decontamination was 0.85 (0.74 to 0.97). Chlorhexidine was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.25, 1.05 to 1.50). When each intervention was compared with the other, both selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination were superior to chlorhexidine. The difference between selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination was uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Selective digestive decontamination has a favourable effect on mortality in adult patients in general intensive care units. In these patients, the effect of selective oropharyngeal decontamination is less certain. Both selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination are superior to chlorhexidine, and there is a possibility that chlorhexidine is associated with increased mortality.

The effectiveness of different concentrations of chlorhexidine for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia and explore the preferred concentration of chlorhexidine.

BACKGROUND

The implementation of effective oral care measures could reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, but among several randomised controlled trials, whether using chlorhexidine is effective and which concentration is more appropriate remain controversial.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis was conducted.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China Biology Medicine disc and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to collect randomised controlled trials of mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving oral care with chlorhexidine to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. The quality of randomised controlled trials was critically appraised, data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and disagreement was resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted for the eligible randomised controlled trials by revman 5.1. Relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel model, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) test.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomised controlled trials were included and a meta-analysis was used. All studies indicated chlorhexidine could significantly prevent and reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia [RR = 0·59, 95% CI (0·50-0·69), p < 0·00001]. Nine studies showed 0·12% chlorhexidine had a significant effect [RR = 0·53, 95% CI (0·43-0·67), p < 0·00001]. Three studies proved the effect of the 2% chlorhexidine on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia [RR = 0·55, 95% CI (0·37-0·81), p = 0·002].

CONCLUSION

Chlorhexidine can prevent and reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chlorhexidine of 0·12% has the best effect on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia according to the meta-analysis, cost analysis, adverse reactions and drug resistance analysis.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Ventilator-associated pneumonia remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit, and implementing effective oral care can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chlorhexidine of 0·12% is recommended in our study.

Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in persons who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, toothbrush, or combination, together with aspiration of secretions may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of OHC on the incidence of VAP in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) in hospitals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 14 January 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 14 January 2013), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 14 January 2013), LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to 14 January 2013), CINAHL (EBSCO) (1980 to 14 January 2013), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to 14 January 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 14 January 2013), Wan Fang Database (January 1984 to 14 January 2013), OpenGrey and ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 January 2013). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all search results, extracted data and undertook risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with similar interventions and outcomes were pooled reporting odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes using random-effects models unless there were fewer than four studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs (5374 participants) were included. Five trials (14%) were assessed at low risk of bias, 17 studies (49%) were at high risk of bias, and 13 studies (37%) were assessed at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. There were four main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX mouthrinse or gel) versus placebo/usual care, toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing, powered versus manual toothbrushing and comparisons of oral care solutions.There is moderate quality evidence from 17 RCTs (2402 participants, two at high, 11 at unclear and four at low risk of bias) that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, compared to placebo or usual care is associated with a reduction in VAP (OR 0.60, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.77, P < 0.001, I(2) = 21%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 15 (95% CI 10 to 34) indicating that for every 15 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of VAP will be prevented. There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care in the outcomes of mortality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.38, P = 0.44, I(2) = 2%, 15 RCTs, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.01 days, P = 0.85, I(2) = 24%, six RCTs, moderate quality evidence), or duration of ICU stay (MD -0.21, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I(2) = 9%, six RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care in the outcomes of duration of use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, microbiological cultures, caregivers preferences or cost. Only three studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups.From three trials of children aged from 0 to 15 years (342 participants, moderate quality evidence) there is no evidence of a difference between OHC with CHX and placebo for the outcomes of VAP (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.77, P = 0.79, I(2) = 0%), or mortality (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.30, P = 0.28, I(2) = 0%), and insufficient evidence to determine the effect on the outcomes of duration of ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, plaque index, microbiological cultures or adverse effects, in children.Based on four RCTs (828 participants, low quality evidence) there is no evidence of a difference between OHC including toothbrushing (± CHX) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± CHX) for the outcome of VAP (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.29, P = 0.24 , I(2) = 64%) and no evidence of a difference for mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16, P = 0.31, I(2) = 0%, four RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference due to toothbrushing for the outcomes of duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, microbiological cultures, adverse effects, caregivers preferences or cost.Only one trial compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review.A range of other oral care solutions were compared. There is some weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline in reducing VAP (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65, P = 0.0009, I(2) = 53%) (two studies, 206 participants, high risk of bias). Due to the variation in comparisons and outcomes among the trials in this group there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions on the outcomes of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Effective OHC is important for ventilated patients in intensive care. OHC that includes either chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel is associated with a 40% reduction in the odds of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adults. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. There is no evidence that OHC including both CHX and toothbrushing is different from OHC with CHX alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP.

Chlorhexidine for the prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill adults

Nosocomial pneumonia is common in critically ill patients and is associated with high mortality rates. The development of pneumonia in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with bacterial colonisation within the oral cavity and translocation into the respiratory tract. Over recent years, several strategies have been employed and recommended for preventing ventilator associated pneumonia in the ICU. Chlorhexidine, a topical antiseptic, is a promising agent in preventing nosocomial pneumonia because of its wide antimicrobial spectrum of activity, ease of administration, minimal concerns of contributing to bacterial resistance and relatively benign side effect profile. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of chlorhexidine in preventing nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill patients, we conducted a literature search by using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and MEDLINE databases; Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966– February 2013) for relevant studies. Overall, seven clinical trials were identified. These studies showed mixed results and the majority failed to demonstrate a significant reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia with the use of chlorhexidine. However, the cardiothoracic surgery ICU patient population may benefit from its use. Further studies are warranted to clearly define the role of chlorhexidine in preventing nosocomial pneumonia.

Modest reduction in risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation following topical oral chlorhexidine

SUBJECTS

The sample (N = 547) included patients older than 18 years (328 men and 219 women from a total population of 10,913) admitted to 3 intensive care units (ICUs) (medical, surgical/trauma, and neuroscience) at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center. The sample size required to detect an interaction (ie, the effect of chlorhexidine and toothbrushing in combination) was determined to be larger than that required to detect main effects (ie, chlorhexidine alone or toothbrushing alone) for a test at a given level of significance. The study was designed to detect an interactive effect resulting in a 0.755 difference in mean Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) at a power of 80% and a significance level of .05. An interim analysis was done and a Bonferroni adjustment was used to avoid inflation in the overall significance level related to interim analyses; for this reason, the level of significance for final analysis was .025. This was a randomized controlled clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Patients were randomized to treatment within each ICU according to a permuted block design developed by the biostatistician before the start of the study. Staff who performed interventions (oral care) had no knowledge of patients' CPIS. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled within 24 hours of intubation and were followed for up to 14 days. Dates of recruitment were not disclosed.

KEY EXPOSURE/STUDY FACTOR

Lung infection, resulting from aspiration of potential bacterial pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or gram-negative rods that first colonize the oral cavity and oropharynx. Oral topical 0.12 % chlorhexidine gluconate, toothbrushing, or both (applied 4 times per day) were tested to determine their impact, if any, on incidence of lung infection in this cohort.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The CPIS was assessed as the primary outcome variable. This score consists of the sum of points assigned to 6 clinical and laboratory variables (yielding a score from 0 to 12): temperature, white blood cell count, tracheal secretions, oxygenation (calculated as PaO2 divided by the fraction of inspired oxygen), findings on chest radiographs (no infiltrate, diffuse infiltrate, localized infiltrate), and results of culturing of tracheal aspirates (microscopic examination and semiquantitative culture of tracheal secretions). Analysis used in this study examined the effect of interventions on both the range of CPIS scores and on dichotomous categories of the presence (CPIS ≥6) or absence (CPIS <6) of VAP.

MAIN RESULTS

When data on all patients were analyzed together, mixed models analysis indicated no effect of either chlorhexidine (P = .29) or toothbrushing (P = .95); however, chlorhexidine significantly reduced the incidence of pneumonia on day 3 (CPIS ≥6) among patients who had a CPIS less than 6 at baseline (P = .006). Toothbrushing had no effect on CPIS and did not enhance the effect of chlorhexidine.

CONCLUSIONS

Chlorhexidine oral swabbing was effective in reducing early ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (after 3 days of intervention) in patients in medical, surgical/trauma, and neuroscience ICUs who did not have evidence of lung infection at baseline. This effect was not observed after day 3. Toothbrushing did not reduce the incidence of VAP, and combining toothbrushing and chlorhexidine did not provide additional benefit over use of chlorhexidine alone.

A mucosal model to study microbial biofilm development and anti-biofilm therapeutics

Biofilms are a sessile colony of bacteria which adhere to and persist on surfaces. The ability of bacteria to form biofilms is considered a virulence factor, and in fact is central to the pathogenesis of some organisms. Biofilms are inherently resistant to chemotherapy and host immune responses. Clinically, biofilms are considered a primary cause of a majority of infections, such as otitis media, pneumonia in cystic fibrosis patients and endocarditis. However, the vast majority of the data on biofilm formation comes from traditional microtiter-based or flow displacement assays with no consideration given to host factors. These assays, which have been a valuable tool in high-throughput screening for biofilm-related factors, do not mimic a host-pathogen interaction and may contribute to an inappropriate estimation of the role of some factors in clinical biofilm formation. We describe the development of a novel ex vivo model of biofilm formation on a mucosal surface by an important mucosal pathogen, methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This model is being used for the identification of microbial virulence factors important in mucosal biofilm formation and novel anti-biofilm therapies.

Oral care education in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: quality patient outcomes in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients in the United States. Routine oral care has been shown to have a direct effect on reducing VAP rates.

METHODS

Intensive care unit registered nurses attended educational sessions about oral care and also used online education modules. Nursing care involving 180 intubated patients was observed, and changes were noted in practices related to oral care.

RESULTS

After the education intervention, the frequency of oral care increased significantly (p = .001) to tooth brushing every 4 hours and swabbing every 12 hours with 0.12% chlorhexidine solution. The evidence-based practice education intervention decreased VAP rates by 62.5%.

CONCLUSION

Significant reductions in VAP rates may be achieved through improved education and implementation of oral care protocols with 0.12% chlorhexidine solution.

Effect of heat and moisture exchangers on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains one of the major causes of infection in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with the length of hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. We compared the frequency of VAP 10 months prior to (pre-intervention group) and 13 months after (post-intervention group) initiation of the use of a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) filter. This is a study with prospective before-and-after design performed in the ICU in a tertiary university hospital. Three hundred and fourteen patients were admitted to the ICU under mechanical ventilation, 168 of whom were included in group HH (heated humidifier) and 146 in group HME. The frequency of VAP per 1000 ventilator-days was similar for both the HH and HME groups (18.7 vs 17.4, respectively; P = 0.97). Duration of mechanical ventilation (11 vs 12 days, respectively; P = 0.48) and length of ICU stay (11 vs 12 days, respectively; P = 0.39) did not differ between the HH and HME groups. The chance of developing VAP was higher in patients with a longer ICU stay and longer duration of mechanical ventilation. This finding was similar when adjusted for the use of HME. The use of HME in intensive care did not reduce the incidence of VAP, the duration of mechanical ventilation, or the length of stay in the ICU in the study population.

Effects of chlorhexidine oral decontamination on respiratory colonization during mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit patients

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess respiratory colonization before and after the use of chlorhexidine oral decontamination among a cohort of intensive care unit patients who received mechanical ventilation. We observed a decrease in the prevalence of Enterobacteriaceae and an increase in the incidence of fungal colonization. Chlorhexidine oral decontamination might have a differential effect on respiratory colonization.

Chlorhexidine decreases the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate whether oral swabbing with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) decreases the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-one dentate patients scheduled for invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 h were included in this randomized, double-blind, controlled study. As these patients were variably incapacitated, oral care was provided by swabbing the oral mucosa four times/d with CHX in the CHX group (29 patients) and with saline in the control group (32 patients). Clinical periodontal measurements were recorded, and lower-respiratory-tract specimens were obtained for microbiological analysis on admission and when VAP was suspected. Pathogens were identified by quantifying colonies using standard culture techniques.

RESULTS

Ventilator-associated pneumonia developed in 34/61 patients (55.7%) within 6.8 d. The VAP development rate was significantly higher in the control group than in the CHX group (68.8% vs. 41.4%, respectively; p = 0.03) with an odds ratio of 3.12 (95% confidence interval = 1.09-8.91). Acinetobacter baumannii was the most common pathogen (64.7%) of all species identified. There were no significant differences between the two groups in clinical periodontal measurements, VAP development time, pathogens detected or mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

The finding of the present study, that oral care with CHX swabbing reduces the risk of VAP development in mechanically ventilated patients, strongly supports its use in ICUs and indeed the importance of adequate oral hygiene in preventing medical complications.

[Effectiveness of oral care in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of oral care in preventing pneumonia associated with mechanical ventilation (VAP).

METHOD

A search was made for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in CINAHL, Cuiden Plus, Pub Med, EMBASE, ENFISPO, Cochrane, Cuiden, DARE, EBE, JBI, and reverse lookup from the beginning of indexing of each database up to 3 May 2010. There were no restrictions on language, age, sex or underlying disease. RCTs that compared oral care and determined their effectiveness in preventing VAP were included. The different interventions were analysed to determine the most effective and protective. Epidat 3.1 was used for analysing the data. Out of a total of 858 articles reviewed, only 14 met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Using a random effects model statistically significant results were found in favour of chlorhexidine as a protective factor against VAP (RR=0.7065, 95% CI: 0.5568-0.8963). The application of 0.12% chlorhexidine twice a day gave an RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.91 and 0.2% chlorhexidine four times daily: (RR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.90), being statistically significant. The application of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine three times a day and brushing did not give statistically significant results.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of chlorhexidine in oral care is a protective factor against VAP. Tooth brushing did not prevent VAP. More RCTs using this intervention are needed to confirm these results.

Effect of oral hygiene with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in children undergoing cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of oral hygiene with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in children undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred sixty children undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease, randomized into 2 groups: chlorhexidine (n = 87) and control (n = 73).

INTERVENTIONS

Oral hygiene with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate or placebo preoperatively and twice a day postoperatively until PICU discharge or death.

RESULTS

Patients in experimental and control groups had similar ages (median, 12.2 vs 10.8 months; P = .72) and risk adjustment for congenital heart surgery 1 score distribution (66% in category 1 or 2 in both groups; P = .17). The incidence of nosocomial pneumonia was 29.8% versus 24.6% (P = .46) and the incidence of VAP was 18.3% versus 15% (P = .57) in the chlorhexidine and the control group, respectively. There was no difference in intubation time (P = .34), need for reintubation (P = .37), time interval between hospitalization and nosocomial pneumonia diagnosis (P = .63), time interval between surgery and nosocomial pneumonia diagnosis (P = .10), and time on antibiotics (P = .77) and vasoactive drugs (P = .16) between groups. Median length of PICU stay (3 vs 4 days; P = .53), median length of hospital stay (12 vs 11 days; P = .67), and 28-day mortality (5.7% vs 6.8%; P = .77) were also similar in the chlorhexidine and the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral hygiene with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate did not reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and VAP in children undergoing cardiac surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00829842 .

Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with oral antiseptics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We did a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised trials to assess the effect of oral care with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine on the prevalence of ventilator-associated pneumonia versus oral care without these antiseptics in adults.

METHODS

Studies were identified through PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and complementary manual searches. Eligible studies were randomised trials of mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving oral care with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine. Relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel model and heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) test.

FINDINGS

14 studies were included (2481 patients), 12 investigating the effect of chlorhexidine (2341 patients) and two of povidone-iodine (140 patients). Overall, antiseptic use resulted in a significant risk reduction of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; p=0.004). Chlorhexidine application was shown to be effective (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.94; p=0.02), whereas the effect resulting from povidone-iodine remains unclear (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.11-1.36; p=0.14). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2)=29%; p=0.16) for the trials using chlorhexidine and high (I(2)=67%; p=0.08) for those assessing povidone-iodine use. Favourable effects were more pronounced in subgroup analyses for 2% chlorhexidine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.91), and in cardiosurgical studies (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.98).

INTERPRETATION

This analysis showed a beneficial effect of oral antiseptic use in prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clinicians should take these findings into account when providing oral care to intubated patients.

FUNDING

None.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a global threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent their spread.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1990 to October 2010), CINAHL (1982 to October 2010), LILACS (2008 to October 2010), Indian MEDLARS (2008 to October 2010) and IMSEAR (2008 to October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case-controls, before-after and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. We assessed RCTs by randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding and follow up. We assessed non-RCTs for potential confounders and classified them as low, medium and high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies including randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias. A total number of participants is not included as the total would be made up of a heterogenous set of observations (participant people, observations on participants and countries (object of some studies)). The risk of bias for five RCTs and most cluster-RCTs was high. Observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Benefit from reduced transmission from children to household members is broadly supported also in other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater. Nine case-control studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures. N95 respirators were non-inferior to simple surgical masks but more expensive, uncomfortable and irritating to skin. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease transmission remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple and low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.

Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, mortality and all intensive care unit acquired infections by topically applied antimicrobial or antiseptic agents: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in intensive care units

INTRODUCTION

Given the high morbidity and mortality attributable to ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, prevention plays a key role in the management of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. One of the candidate preventive interventions is the selective decontamination of the digestive or respiratory tract (SDRD) by topical antiseptic or antimicrobial agents. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of topical digestive or respiratory tract decontamination with antiseptics or antibiotics in the prevention of VAP, of mortality and of all ICU-acquired infections in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. The U.S. National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database, Embase, and Cochrane Library computerized bibliographic databases, and reference lists of selected studies were used. Selection criteria for inclusion were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); primary studies; examining the reduction of VAP and/or mortality and/or all ICU-acquired infections in ICU patients by prophylactic use of one or more of following topical treatments: 1) oropharyngeal decontamination using antiseptics or antibiotics, 2) gastrointestinal tract decontamination using antibiotics, 3) oropharyngeal plus gastrointestinal tract decontamination using antibiotics and 4) respiratory tract decontamination using antibiotics; reported enough data to estimate the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) and their variance; English language; published through June 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles met all inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall estimate of efficacy of topical SDRD in the prevention of VAP was 27% (95% CI of efficacy = 16% to 37%) for antiseptics and 36% (95% CI of efficacy = 18% to 50%) for antibiotics, whereas in none of the meta-analyses conducted on mortality was a significant effect found. The effect of topical SDRD in the prevention of all ICU-acquired infections was statistically significant (efficacy = 29%; 95% CI of efficacy = 14% to 41%) for antibiotics whereas the use of antiseptics did not show a significant beneficial effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical SDRD using antiseptics or antimicrobial agents is effective in reducing the frequency of VAP in ICU. Unlike antiseptics, the use of topical antibiotics seems to be effective also in preventing all ICU-acquired infections, while the effectiveness on mortality of these two approaches needs to be investigated in further research.

Association between pneumonia and oral care in nursing home residents

Pneumonia remains the leading cause of death in nursing home residents. The accumulation of dental plaque and colonization of oral surfaces and dentures with respiratory pathogens serves as a reservoir for recurrent lower respiratory tract infections. Control of gingivitis and dental plaques has been effective in reducing the rate of pneumonia but the provision of dental care for institutionalized elderly is inadequate, with treatment often sought only when patients experience pain or denture problems. Direct mechanical cleaning is thwarted by the lack of adequate training of nursing staff and residents' uncooperativeness. Chlorhexidine-based interventions are advocated as alternative methods for managing the oral health of frail older people; however, efficacy is yet to be demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. Development and maintenance of an oral hygiene program is a critical step in the prevention of pneumonia. While resources may be limited in long-term-care facilities, incorporating oral care in daily routine practice helps to reduce systemic diseases and to promote overall quality of life in nursing home residents.

Diagnosis, management and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: an update

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) affects 10-20% of mechanically ventilated patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs. Early diagnosis is crucial for rapid appropriate antimicrobial therapy to be instituted, but debate remains as to the optimal diagnostic strategy. Noninvasive clinical-based diagnosis is rapid but may not be as accurate as invasive techniques. Increased use of biomarkers and advances in genomics and proteomics may help speed up diagnosis. Management of VAP relies principally on appropriate antimicrobial therapy, which should be selected according to individual patient factors, such as previous antibacterial therapy and length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation, and local infection and resistance patterns. In addition, once bacterial culture and sensitivity results are available, broad-spectrum therapy should be de-escalated to provide a more specific, narrower-spectrum cover. Optimum duration of antibacterial therapy is difficult to define and should be tailored to clinical response. Biomarker levels may be useful to monitor response to therapy. With the high morbidity and mortality, prevention of VAP is important and several strategies have been shown to reduce the rates of VAP in mechanically ventilated patients, including using noninvasive ventilation where possible, and semi-recumbent positioning. Other potentially beneficial preventive techniques include subglottal suctioning, oral decontamination strategies and antimicrobial-coated endotracheal tubes, although further study is needed to confirm the cost effectiveness of these strategies.