Removal of oral secretion prior to position change can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia for adult ICU patients: a clinical controlled trial study

Proof of concept design for a toothbrush with on-board vacuum to reduce oral aspirates

BACKGROUND

Over the course of brushing, aerosolised particles develop in the mouth. In individuals who do not have the ability to expel these oral aspirates, they can be inhaled and cause aspiration pneumonia. This article showcases a novel vacuum toothbrush, termed "ToothVac," and provides findings from its first human trial.

METHODS

The ToothVac device suctions saliva and aspirates during brushing, storing them in a removable reservoir at the bottom of the brush, to minimise the risk of inhalation and subsequent infection. Further descriptions of the various components of the ToothVac are included. This trial involved 18 participants who brushed using the ToothVac with the vacuum suction turned on and then off.

RESULTS

The volume of saliva produced was measured and compared. The ToothVac significantly reduced the amount of saliva that was produced by these participants when brushing.

CONCLUSION

The device has potential clinical potential in that it may reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia and related lung infections. Potential future research may include clinical trials for specific indications or marketing for oral aspirate removal, as well as optimisation of brush design using injection moulding for scalable manufacturing.

Oral Care Associated With Less Microaspiration in Ventilated Cardiac Patients

Aspiration is common in mechanically ventilated patients and may predispose patients to aspiration pneumonia, chemical pneumonitis, and chronic lung damage. Pepsin A is a specific marker of gastric fluid aspiration and is often detected in ventilated pediatric patients. We investigated the effect of oral care and throat suctioning in the detection of pepsin A in tracheal aspirates (TAs) up to 4 hours after these procedures.

Methods

Twelve pediatric patients between age 2 weeks to 14 years who underwent intubation for cardiac surgery were enrolled in this study. Six of the 12 patients were consented before their surgery with initial specimen collected at the time of intubation and last one shortly before extubation (intubation duration < 24 hours). The remaining 6 patients were consented after cardiac surgery. All specimens were collected per routine care per respiratory therapy protocol and shortly before extubation (intubation duration > 24 hours). Tracheal fluid aspirates were collected every 4 to 12 hours in the ventilated patients. Enzymatic assay for gastric pepsin A and protein determination were performed. The time of oral care and throat suctioning within 4 hours prior was recorded prospectively.

Results

A total of 342 TA specimens were obtained from the 12 intubated pediatric patients during their course of hospitalization; 287 (83.9%) showed detectable total pepsin (pepsin A and C) enzyme activity (> 6 ng/mL) and 176 (51.5%) samples had detectable pepsin A enzyme levels (>6 ng/mL of pepsin A). Only 29 samples of 76 samples (38.2%) had evidence of microaspiration after receiving oral care, while 147 of 266 (55.3%) samples were pepsin A positive when no oral care was provided. Odds ratio is 0.50 (Cl 0.30-0.84), and the number needed to treat is 5.8 (Confidence interval 3.4-22.3). Testing air filters for pepsin was not beneficial.

Conclusion

Oral care is a highly effective measure to prevent microaspiration of gastric fluid in ventilated pediatric patients. The number needed to treat (5.8) suggests this is a very effective prevention strategy. Our study suggests that pepsin A is a useful and sensitive biomarker that allows identification of gastric aspiration.

Evaluation of pneumonia due to mechanical ventilation and its association with the severity of disease in patients admitted to intensive care unit

Among the hospital-acquired infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has the highest mortality and morbidity rates. The aim of this study was to identify VAP in the intensive care unit (ICU) and its association with the severity of the disease. This descriptive-analytic study was conducted in Golestan University of Medical Sciences (Northern Iran). In the present study, 239 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation hospitalized in ICU were selected through non-random sampling. Data were recorded by using APACHE II criteria and diagnosis of VAP was made based on clinical criterion and physician confirmation. Data were analyzed by independent t-test, Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney test, and single-variable logistic test. The incidence of VAP was 19.2% and it was significantly related to mean arterial pressure (P = 0.035) and male sex (P = 0.122). There was a significant and direct correlation between the incidence of VAP and the increase in the value of gastric residual volume > 200 ml (P = 0.001). The findings of this study showed that male sex, increased arterial pressure, and gastric residual volume were the risk factors for the development of of VAP.

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.

The effect of oropharyngeal aspiration before position change on reducing the incidence of ventilator- associated pneumonia

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of oropharyngeal aspiration on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence just prior to changing patient position. This randomized controlled experimental study was conducted between July 2015 and April 2019 in anesthesiology and reanimation of intensive care unit (ICU). The patients of experimental group underwent oropharyngeal aspiration under surgical aseptic conditions before each position change. Patients of the control group received oropharyngeal aspiration only as needed. The mean age of the patients was 62.87 ± 17.33 years. The mean and median duration of stay in the ICU were 27.28 ± 30.69 and 18.00 days respectively. The mean and median of duration of the mechanical ventilation support were 26.72 ± 30.65 and 18.00 (min 4; max 168) days respectively. Thirty percent of the patients were VAP. The mean duration of VAP development was 7.50 ± 5.07 days. The rate of VAP development was 11.23/1000 mechanical ventilator days. Only 8.3% of the experimental group patients developed VAP; 91.7% of the control group patients developed VAP. The VAP rate in the control group was 16.82/1000 mechanical ventilator days and the VAP rate in the experimental group was 2.41/1000 mechanical ventilator days. Most VAP agents were multidrug resistant. Distribution of isolated microorganisms was as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Corynebacterium striatum, Staphylococcus aureus, Providencia stuartii, Serratia marcescens, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Aspergillus flavus. In our study, it was concluded that oropharyngeal aspiration performed prior to patient position change prevented the development of VAP.

Impact of deep oropharyngeal suctioning on microaspiration, ventilator events, and clinical outcomes: A randomized clinical trial

AIMS

To evaluate a deep oropharyngeal suction intervention (NO-ASPIRATE) in intubated patients on microaspiration, ventilator-associated events and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective, two-group, single-blind, randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The study was conducted between 2014 - 2017 in 513 participants enroled within 24 hr of intubation and randomized into NO-ASPIRATE or usual care groups. Standard oral care was provided to all participants every 4 hr and deep oropharyngeal suctioning was added to the NO-ASPIRATE group. Oral and tracheal specimens were obtained to quantify α-amylase as an aspiration biomarker.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 410 study completers enrolled at least 36 hr: NO-ASPIRATE (N = 206) and usual care (N = 204). Percent of tracheal specimens positive for α-amylase, mean tracheal α-amylase levels over time and ventilator-associated events were not different between groups. The NO-ASPIRATE group had a shorter hospital length of stay and a subgroup with moderate aspiration at baseline had significantly lower α-amylase levels across time.

CONCLUSION

Hospital length of stay was shorter in the NO-ASPIRATE group and a subgroup of intervention participants had lower α-amylase across time. Delivery of standardized oral care to all participants may have been an intervention itself and possibly associated with the lack of significant findings for most outcomes.

IMPACT

This trial compared usual care to oral care with a deep suctioning intervention on microaspiration and ventilator-associated events, as this has not been systematically studied. Further research on the usefulness of α-amylase as an aspiration biomarker and the role of oral suctioning, especially for certain populations, is indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02284178.

Nursing oral suction intervention to reduce aspiration and ventilator events (NO-ASPIRATE): A randomized clinical trial

AIM

The primary aim of this study is to compare an oropharyngeal suction intervention versus usual care on microaspiration in intubated patients. Secondary aims are to evaluate the intervention on ventilator-associated condition rates, time to occurrence and compare tracheal-oral α-amylase ratios between groups.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health in February 2014 and Institutional Review Board approval in July 2013. Over 4 years, a convenience sample of 600 orally intubated, ventilated adult patients will be enrolled within 24 hr of intubation. The target sample is 400 participants randomized to the two groups. The intervention involves enhanced suctioning of the mouth and oropharynx every 4 hr, while the usual care group receives a sham suctioning. The research team will deliver usual oral care to all patients every 4 hr and collect oral and tracheal specimens every 12 hr, to quantify α-amylase levels to detect aspiration of oral secretions. Study completers must be enrolled at least 36 hr (baseline and three paired samples). Outcomes include α-amylase levels, percent of positive specimens, ventilator-associated conditions, length of stay, ventilator hours, and discharge disposition.

DISCUSSION

Enrolment has closed, and data analysis has begun. Subgroup analyses emerged, contributing to future research knowledge.

IMPACT

Standardized interventions have reduced but do not address all risk factors associated with ventilator-associated conditions. This study provides the potential to reduce microaspiration and associated sequelae in critically ill, intubated 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, 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.

Patient Safety: Identifying and Managing Complications of Mechanical Ventilation

Mechanical ventilation is a fundamental aspect of critical care practice to help meet the respiratory needs of critically ill patients. Complications can occur though, as a direct result of being mechanically ventilated, or indirectly because of a secondary process. Preventing, identifying, and managing these complications significantly contribute to the role and responsibilities of critical care nurses in promoting patient safety. This article reviews common ventilator-associated events, including both infectious (eg, ventilator-associated pneumonia) and noninfectious causes (eg, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary edema, pleural effusion, and atelectasis).

The Effect of a Designed Respiratory Care Program on the Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a common complication of mechanical ventilation. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of designed respiratory care program on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the mechanically ventilated patient.

METHODS

In this clinical trial, 64 patients were selected among those who had undergone mechanical ventilation in the ICU of Al‑Zahra Hospital, Isfahan, Iran, using convenience sampling method. The subjects were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. In the intervention group an upper respiratory care program and in the control group, routine cares were done. Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Questionnaire was completed before and on the third, fourth and fifth day of study. Data were analyzed by Chi-square and independent t-test through SPSS Ver.13.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that until the third day of study, the incidence of VAP was similar in the both groups. However, on the fifth day of study, the incidence of VAP in the intervention group was significantly lower than control group.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that an upper respiratory care program reduced the incidence of VAP. Therefore, nurses are recommended to perform this program for prevention of VAP.

Applying Adult Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Bundle Evidence to the Ventilated Neonate

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in neonates can be reduced by implementing preventive care practices. Implementation of a group, or bundle, of evidence-based practices that improve processes of care has been shown to be cost-effective and to have better outcomes than implementation of individual single practices.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to describe a safe, effective, and efficient neonatal VAP prevention protocol developed for caregivers in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Improved understanding of VAP causes, effects of care practices, and rationale for interventions can help reduce VAP risk to neonatal patients.

METHOD

In order to improve care practices to affect VAP rates, initial and annual education occurred on improved protocol components after surveying staff practices and auditing documentation compliance.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

In 2009, a tertiary care level III NICU in the Midwestern United States had 14 VAP cases. Lacking evidence-based VAP prevention practices for neonates, effective adult strategies were modified to meet the complex needs of the ventilated neonate. A protocol was developed over time and resulted in an annual decrease in VAP until rates were zero for 20 consecutive months from October 2012 to May 2014.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This article describes a VAP prevention protocol developed to address care practices surrounding hand hygiene, intubation, feeding, suctioning, positioning, oral care, and respiratory equipment in the NICU.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Implementation of this VAP prevention protocol in other facilities with appropriate monitoring and tracking would provide broader support for standardization of care. Individual components of this VAP protocol could be studied to strengthen the inclusion of each; however, bundled interventions are often considered stronger when implemented as a whole.

Comparison of airway management practices between registered nurses and respiratory care practitioners

BACKGROUND

Airway management, an essential component of care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation, is multifaceted and includes oral hygiene and suctioning, endotracheal suctioning, and care of endotracheal tubes. Registered nurses and respiratory care personnel often share responsibilities for airway management. Knowledge of current practices can help facilitate evidence-based practices to optimize care of patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

To describe current practices for airway management of intubated patients and determine if practices differ between registered nurses and respiratory care practitioners.

METHODS

A descriptive, comparative design was used. Registered nurses and respiratory care practitioners who provided direct care to intubated patients receiving mechanical ventilation were recruited to complete an online survey of self-reported practices.

RESULTS

A total of 85 participants completed the survey. Most were experienced caregivers with a bachelor's degree and certification or registration in their field. Selected practices have improved, including increasing oxygen saturation before endotracheal suctioning, maintaining pressure of endotracheal tube cuffs, and providing oral hygiene and suctioning. The practices of registered nurses and respiratory care practitioners differed in many ways. The nurses assumed responsibility for oral antisepsis, whereas the respiratory care practitioners managed the endotracheal tube. The 2 groups shared responsibility for oral and endotracheal suctioning. Knowledge of current guidelines for endotracheal suctioning was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Practices in airway management have improved, but opportunities exist to develop shared policies and procedures based on current evidence.

Reducing ventilator associated pneumonia in adult patients through high standards of oral care: a historical control study

OBJECTIVES

Implement and evaluate the impact of oral hygiene measures (teeth brushing, 1% oral chlorhexidine and oropharyngeal suction) on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and the costs of prevention and treatment.

DESIGN

A historical control study of all 1087 patients, mechanically ventilated for at least 48hours in a general adult critical care unit, between July 2009 and December 2011. The incidence of VAP in 528 patients before a practice change was compared with the incidence in 559 patients after a practice change. The clinical audit cycle was used to review compliance with existing standards and implement a regime of enhanced oral hygiene. The costs of changing the oral care regime and the treatment of VAP with antibiotics was calculated.

SETTING

22 bed combined intensive care and high dependency unit in England.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Compliance with standards for oral care. (2) The incidence of VAP before and after the change.

RESULTS

91% (95% CI 90-93%) compliance with the standards for oral care was achieved throughout the 30 months of the study with very little difference before (90%, 95% CI 88-93%) and after (92%, 95% CI 90-95%) the changes in oral care standards were introduced. Of 528 patients mechanically ventilated for at least 48 hours before the change, 47 developed VAP. The mean incidence of VAP was 0.09 (8.9%) (95% CI 0.07-0.12). The mean VAP per 1000 ventilator days was 13.6 (95% CI 13.1-14.0). After the change 24 of 559 patients developed VAP. The mean incidence of VAP after the change was 0.04 (4.1%) (95% CI 0.03-0.06). The mean VAP per 1000 ventilator days was 6.9 (95% CI 6.5-7.1). There was a £6319 ($10,112, €7518) cost saving on preventing and treating VAP following the practice change. A statistically significant difference (p<0.01) was seen between the incidence of VAP expected and that observed after the change in oral care. This represents a relative risk reduction of 0.53 (95% CI 0.25-0.71) and number needed to treat (NNT) of 21.

CONCLUSION

An enhanced oral care bundle, incorporating 1% Chlorhexidine Gluconate, was associated with a significant reduction in VAP and the costs of treating VAP. Limitations of the study relate to analysis of other variables, in particular severity of illness, between the two groups and the lack of agreement in the literature on VAP criteria, which limits generalisation of these findings.

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.

Toothbrushing for critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Oral care may decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU. The objective of this review was to summarize and critically appraise randomized trials in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU testing the effect of oral care strategies involving toothbrushing on ventilator-associated pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews from 1980 until March 2012, independently and in duplicate, as well as personal files and reference lists. In duplicate, articles were selected if they were randomized trials, enrolled adult critically ill patients, compared any kind of oral care involving toothbrushing with any other kind of oral care or control with or without toothbrushing, and examined ventilator-associated pneumonia. In duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics and quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The results were combined using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We included six trials enrolling 1,408 patients, five of which compared toothbrushing to usual oral care and one of which compared electric with manual toothbrushing. In four trials, there was a trend toward lower ventilator-associated pneumonia rates (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.21; p = 0.26). This trend was also observed in one trial reporting fewer cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia per 1,000 ventilator days (20.68 vs. 25.89; p = 0.53) in patients receiving toothbrushing vs. no toothbrushing. The only trial with low risk of bias suggested that toothbrushing significantly reduced ventilator-associated pneumonia (risk ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.67; p = 0.006). Use of chlorhexidine antisepsis seems to attenuate the effect of toothbrushing on ventilator-associated pneumonia (p for the interaction = 0.02). One trial comparing electric vs. manual toothbrushing showed no difference in ventilator-associated pneumonia rates (risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-1.96; p = 0.91). Toothbrushing did not impact on length of ICU stay, or ICU or hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In intubated, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, toothbrushing did not significantly reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia overall. Toothbrushing has no effect on mortality or length of stay. Electric and manual toothbrushing seem to have similar effects. More research is needed on this aspect of oral care to evaluate its potential to decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Mouth care for orally intubated patients: a critical ethnographic review of the nursing literature

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this critical ethnographic literature review was to explore the evolution of nursing discourse in oral hygiene for intubated and mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

The online databases CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched for nurse-authored English language articles published between 1960 and 2011 in peer-reviewed journals. Articles that did not discuss oral problems or related care for intubated adult patients were excluded. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were chronologically reviewed to trace changes in language and focus over time.

RESULTS

A total of 469 articles were identified, and 84 papers met all of the inclusion criteria. These articles presented an increasingly scientific and evaluative nursing discourse. Oral care originally focused on patient comfort within the literature; now it is emphasized as an infection control practice for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Despite concern for its neglected application, the literature does not sufficiently address mouth care's practical accomplishment.

CONCLUSIONS

Mouth care for orally intubated patients is both a science and practice. However, the nursing literature now emphasises a scientific discourse of infection prevention. Inattention to the social and technical complexities of practice may inhibit how nurses learn, discuss and effectively perform this critical aspect of patient care.

Strategies for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: bundles, devices, and medications for improved patient outcomes

Ventilator-associated pneumonia is associated with significant patient morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. In the current economic climate, it is crucial to implement cost-effective prevention strategies that have proven efficacy. Multiple prevention measures have been proposed by various expert panels. Global strategies have focused on infection control, and reduction of lower airway colonization with bacterial pathogens, intubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Routine use of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement ventilator care bundle is widespread, and has been clearly demonstrated to be an effective method for reducing the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. In this article, we examine specific aspects of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement bundle, better-designed endotracheal tubes, use of antibiotics and probiotics, and treatment of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Oropharyngeal secretion volume in intubated patients: the importance of oral suctioning

BACKGROUND

Aspiration of secretions that accumulate above the cuff of the endotracheal tube is a risk factor for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Routine suctioning of oropharyngeal secretions may reduce this risk; the recommended frequency for suctioning is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the volume of secretions suctioned from the oropharynx of critically ill patients at 2 different intervals to assist in identifying a recommended frequency for oropharyngeal suctioning.

METHODS

A prospective, repeated measure, single-group design was used. Twenty-eight patients who were orally intubated and treated with mechanical ventilation were enrolled; 2 were extubated during data collection, yielding a sample of 26 patients. The patients were suctioned at baseline with a deep suction catheter, and the volume and weight of secretions were recorded. The procedure was repeated at 2-hour and 4-hour intervals.

RESULTS

Most of the patients were male (mean age, 49 years). Three suctioning passes were needed to clear secretions, with a mean time of 48.1 seconds. The mean volume of secretions at the 2-hour interval was 7.5 mL. Five patients required suctioning before the 4-hour interval. For the remaining 21 patients, the volume retrieved was 6.5 mL at the 2-hour interval and 7.5 mL at the 4-hour interval (P = .27). The 5 patients who required extra suctioning had significantly more secretions at the 2-hour interval (11.6 mL vs 6.5 mL; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A minimum frequency of oropharyngeal suctioning every 4 hours is recommended. However, more frequent suctioning may be needed in a subset of patients.

Effects of systematic oral care in critically ill patients: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

No standard oral assessment tools are available for determining frequency of oral care in critical care patients, and the method of providing oral care is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of a systematic program of oral care on oral assessment scores in critically ill intubated and nonintubated, patients.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected 3 times during critical care admissions before and after institution of a systematic program of oral care in 3 different medical centers. The oral care education program consisted of instruction from a dentist or dental hygienist and a clear procedure outlining systematic oral care. The Beck Oral Assessment Scale and the mucosal-plaque score were used to assess the oral cavity. Data were analyzed by using linear mixed modeling with controls for severity of illness.

RESULTS

Scores on the Beck Scale differed significantly (F = 4.79, P = .01) in the pattern of scores across the 3 days and between the control group (before oral education) and the systematic oral care group. Unlike the control group, the treatment group had decreasing scores on the Beck Scale from day 1 to day 5. The mucosal-plaque score and the Beck Scale scores had strong correlations throughout the study; the highest correlation was on day 5 (r = 0.798, P < .001, n = 43).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral assessment scores improved after nurses implemented a protocol for systematic oral care. Use of the Beck Scale and the mucosal-plaque score could standardize oral assessment and guide nurses in providing oral interventions.

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.

How I learned my ABCs: Action, back to basics, collaboration, discovery

BACKGROUND

Research is essential to generate the scientific evidence for critical care nursing practice, but it is challenging to conduct research in the busy critical care environment. The challenges are even greater in a setting with limited resources for research and where nurses have not typically conducted independent clinical studies.

OBJECTIVES

To detail a successful research trajectory for studying the ABCs of patient care in the critically ill: airway, breathing, and circulation.

METHODS

After initial studies on circulation were conducted, the research was narrowed to focus on airway management. Airway management may be a key factor in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia because aspiration of colonized oral, gastric, and tracheal secretions is the primary cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Multiple descriptive, pilot, and interventional studies have been conducted; findings from each have contributed to future studies.

RESULTS

Other ABCs were critical to this research success: action, back to basics, collaboration, and discovery. It is important for researchers to be self-motivated and to take initiative to develop skills and resources for conducting clinical studies. Several guiding principles help to promote success in research: (1) generate research ideas grounded in observation and clinical practice, (2) collaborate with others, and (3) establish affiliations and partnerships. Discovery occurs in many ways: new findings to guide practice and research, resources to conduct the study, and self-discovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing research is not easy. However, determination and resources help nursing researchers achieve success.