Effect of an oral care protocol in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in ICU patients

Physical oral care prevents ventilator-associated pneumonia in Vietnam: A prospective interventional study

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has emerged as a critical issue in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of its high burden on patients and medical staff. Here, we examined the potential for reducing VAP incidence through physical oral care interventions without any medication.

METHODS

This prospective interventional study compared VAP incidence during an 8-month baseline period (usual oral care) and a 9-month intervention period (physical oral care with sponge brush) among patients who received mechanical ventilation for >48 h in a tertiary care hospital in Vietnam from 2017 to 2019. Physical oral care was provided by general ICU nurses who had been trained by dentists and infection control nurses. VAP was diagnosed using the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score.

RESULTS

In total, 423 patients were enrolled in the baseline group and 454 patients were enrolled in the intervention group; 303 and 300 patients, respectively, were included in the analysis. Two hundred thirty-eight VAP episodes were identified: 135 (44.6%) during the baseline period and 103 (34.3%) during the intervention period. Univariate analysis revealed significant reduction of VAP occurrence in the intervention period (odds ratio = 0.65; 95% confidence interval = 0.47-0.90; P = 0.010). The incidences of VAP per 1000 ventilator-days were 63.4 (135/2128) during the baseline period and 48.4 (103/2128) during the intervention period (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Physical oral care without any medication (e.g., chlorhexidine) reduced VAP incidence in the ICU. This method could be used to reduce VAP incidence, particularly in countries with limited medical resources.

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.

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.

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.