The use of 2% chlorhexidine gel and toothbrushing for oral hygiene of patients receiving mechanical ventilation: effects on ventilator-associated pneumonia

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.

Impact of oral care modalities on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, evidence of the role of oral hygiene in ICU-related pneumonia is rare. The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of toothbrush-based oral care in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with mechanical ventilation in the ICU.

METHODS

Ten databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating toothbrush-based oral care for preventing VAP in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU. Quality assessment and data extraction were independently performed by 2 researchers. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs with 657 patients were included. Tooth brushing + 0.2%/0.12% chlorhexidine was associated with reduced incidence of VAP compared to chlorhexidine (OR = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.91, P = .01) or tooth brushing + placebo (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, P = .02) in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU, but was similar to cotton wipe with 0.2% or 0.12% chlorhexidine (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.77-2.29, P = .31).

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth brushing combined with chlorhexidine mouthwash can prevent VAP in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU. There is no advantage of tooth brushing combined with chlorhexidine mouthwash over cotton wipe with chlorhexidine mouthwash for preventing VAP in these 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.

Oral mucosal mouthwash with chlorhexidine does not reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill children: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most frequently encountered causes of hospital-acquired infection and results in high morbidity among intubated patients. Few trials have investigated the efficacy of oral care with chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash for the prevention of VAP in the paediatric population.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of CHX mouthwash in the prevention of VAP and to determine risk factors for VAP in children aged 1 month to 18 years admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blind trial performed in the PICU. Patients were randomised into two groups receiving CHX (0.12%) (n = 88) or placebo (0.9% NaCl) (n = 86) and were followed up for VAP development. The main outcome measures were incidence of VAP, duration of hospital stay, duration of PICU stay, duration of ventilation, mortality, and the characteristics of organisms isolated in cases with VAP.

RESULTS

No difference was observed in the incidence of VAP and the type and distribution of organisms in the two groups (p > 0.05). In the CHX and placebo groups, we identified 21 and 22 patients with VAP, respectively. Incidence per 1000 ventilation days was 29.5 events in the CHX group and 35.1 events in the placebo group. Gram-negative bacteria were most common (71.4% in CHX vs. 54.5% in placebo). The use of 0.12% CHX did not influence hospital stay, PICU stay, ventilation, and mortality (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified duration of ventilation as the only independent risk factor for VAP (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of 0.12% CHX did not reduce VAP frequency among critically ill children. The only factor that increased VAP frequency was longer duration on ventilation. It appears that low concentration of CHX is not effective for VAP prevention, especially in the presence of multiresistant bacteria. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04527276.

Combination of toothbrushing and chlorhexidine compared with exclusive use of chlorhexidine to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine alone and 0.12% chlorhexidine in combination with toothbrushing to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature, PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Scopus, LIVIVO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenThesis, and Open Access Thesis and Dissertations databases were used. Only randomized controlled trials without restrictions on the year or language of publication were included. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model estimated the combined relative risk (RR). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Initially, 2,337 studies were identified, of which 4 were considered in the systematic review and 3 in the meta-analysis (total sample: 796 patients). The studies were published between 2009 and 2017. All eligible studies had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the risk of VAP was 24% lower in patients receiving chlorhexidine combined with toothbrushing than in those receiving chlorhexidine alone (RR: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.06), with moderate certainty of evidence and without statistical significance. In conclusion, considering the limitations of this study, a standard protocol for the prevention of VAP is not yet recommended. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw strong conclusions. However, considering that toothbrushing is a simple intervention, it should be a common practice in mechanically ventilated patients, especially among patients with coronavirus disease.

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.

Efficacy of toothbrushing procedures performed in intensive care units in reducing the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess whether toothbrushing-based oral heath measure (OHM), performed in intensive care units, can reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Dental biofilm removal has been considered important to prevent VAP. PUBMED, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched up to and including December 2018 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) on the use of toothbrushing procedures in the prevention of VAP. Search was conducted by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's domain-based, two-part tool. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted thoroughly. Search strategy identified 215 potentially eligible articles, of which 12 RCT were included. All studies evidenced the importance of OHM in mechanically ventilated patients in order to prevent VAP. Seven RCT (58.3%) found some degree of positive association between toothbrushing, alone or associated to oral topical chlorhexidine (CHX), and a potential reduction of mechanical ventilation-related outcomes and dental biofilm/oral bacteria. However, pooled estimates did not identify an additional decrease of VAP incidence for any of the tested procedures (ie, toothbrushing + CHX versus swab/gauze cleaning + CHX or toothbrushing + CHX versus toothbrushing alone or + placebo). Toothbrushing does not seem to promote a reduction of VAP-outcomes compared to swab/gauze cleaning, when topic CHX is applied for oral hygiene of patients submitted to mechanical ventilation.

Laryngoscope-assisted and cotton ball wiping methods in prevention of oral and pulmonary infection in patients receiving mechanical ventilation and the influence on hypersensitive C-reactive protein and procalcitonin

Effects of laryngoscope-assisted and cotton ball wiping methods on the prevention of oral and pulmonary infection in patients receiving mechanical ventilation were compared to explore the influence of the two methods on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT). In total, 152 patients who underwent mechanical ventilation in the ICU of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from May 2005 to January 2018 were assigned and equally divided into two groups: 76 patients who had their oropharynxes scrubbed and rinsed by an electric toothbrush under direct vision by the use of a laryngoscope were selected as the laryngoscope group, and 76 patients who received the conventional cotton ball wiping method and the flushing method for oropharyngeal cleaning were assigned in the cotton ball group. Detection of serum hs-CRP and PCT levels in a 2-ml sample of fasting venous blood was performed on both groups of patients before hospitalization, and on the 5th and 10th day of hospitalization. The incidence rate of oral infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia, as well as the length of the cleaning time were recorded. The incidence rate of oral infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia in the laryngoscope group was statistically much lower than that in the cotton ball group (P<0.05). Before the experiment, there was no significant difference in the hs-CRP and PCT levels between the two groups (P>0.050), whereas the laryngoscope group had significantly lower hs-CRP and PCT levels at the 5th and 10th day of hospitalization than those in the cotton ball group (P<0.05). The hs-CRP and PCT levels at the three time-points in the same group were statistically different (P<0.05). In conclusion, oropharyngeal scrub and rinse by an electric toothbrush assisted by a laryngoscope, can not only better prevent oral infection and reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, but it also has shorter cleaning time and results in lower levels of inflammatory factors, which make this method beneficial in the clinic.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Nanosil Mouthwash on the Preventing Pulmonary Infection in Intensive Care Unit: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

Oral and Oro-pharynx colonization and Micro-aspiration of discharges are two important processes in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). So, this study design to investigated the preventive effect of oral decontamination program by Nanosil mouthwash on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Methods

80 newly hospitalized patients who admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) of Amin Medical Education Center were enrolled to a randomized clinical trial study. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the intervention group, a multi-stage oral decontamination program was performed by using Nanosil mouthwash three times a day, and in the control group oral decontamination was performed by Chlorhexidine 0.12% with same method. The oral decontamination program was continuing for five days. The VAP was diagnosed with a version of modified clinical pulmonary infection scale (MCPIS) on the first and fifth days.

Results

In compare the case and control groups, there wasn't observed significant difference in age, gender, underling disease, smoking, and primary mean scores of MCPIS, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) (P>0.05). In the both groups, the mean scores of SOFA and GCS were significantly improve in fifth day (P<0.05). After five days follow up, the mean score of MCPIS (1.2±0.1 vs. 3.5±0.3, P<0.001) and pneumonia rate (2.7% vs. 23.7%, P=0.008) were significantly lower in case group. But, the mortality rate was same in both groups (P>0.05).

Discussion

The use of oral care program with Nanosil mouthwash is better than Chlorhexidine for the prevention of VAP in patients who admitted in ICU.

The practice of dentistry in intensive care units in Brazil

Objective

To evaluate the practice of dentistry in intensive care units.

Methods

An observational survey study was conducted in which questionnaires were sent via the online platform for collaboration in intensive care research in Brazil (AMIBnet). The study was carried out from June to October 2017. The questionnaires, which contained 26 closed questions about hospitals and dentistry practices in the intensive care units, were sent to 4,569 professionals from different specialties practicing in the units.

Results

In total, 203 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 4.44%. Most of the responses were from intensive care units in the Southeast region of the country (46.8%). Public hospitals (37.9%) and private hospitals (36.4%) had similar participation rates. Of the respondents, 55% indicated that a bedside dentistry service was present, and they were provided in different ways.

Conclusion

The presence of dentistry services and oral health service delivery training and protocols were correlated. The oral care methods varied greatly among the intensive care units surveyed.

Oral Chlorhexidine Against Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Microbial Colonization in Intensive Care Patients

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effect of chlorhexidine at different concentration and frequency on ventilator-associated pneumonia and microbial colonization in mechanically ventilated patients. Relevant studies in English language were identified by searching data bases between January 2010 and December 2017. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Chlorhexidine with 0.2% concentration was found to be more effective than the control group (placebo dental gel and normal saline) in preventing the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia in three of the eight studies. Twice-daily application was found to be effective reducing the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in three studies using 0.2% and 2% chlorhexidine. Microbial colonization was found to be less in 2% chlorhexidine group than herbal mouth wash 0.9% NaCl and 0.2% chlorhexidine in three studies. Chlorhexidine is an effective intervention in oral care for ventilator-associated pneumonia and microbial colonization.

Comparison of the effect of oral care with four different antiseptics to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as the occurrence of pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h after endotracheal intubation. The implementation of effective oral care with antiseptics may reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, previous studies have been unclear about the best antiseptic for this purpose. Therefore, present protocol proposed to perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different antiseptics to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will search CNKI, WanFang database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SinoMed from their inception to March 2016. There are no restrictions on language, publication year, or publication type. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with antiseptics to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia will be considered. Study selection and data collection will be independently performed by two reviewers. Risk of bias assessments will be completed using the Cochrane risk of bias scale. The primary outcome is VAP morbidity. A network meta-analysis will be conducted to compare the effect of four different antiseptics on patient-relevant efficacy. Subgroup analyses will be performed by the type of setting and length of mechanical ventilation, and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.

DISCUSSION

Oral care to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia has been widely used. The efficacy of usual oral antiseptics have been assessed mainly using traditional meta-analysis. However, it was unclear which oral care solution is best used for oral care and there were no head-to-head RCT to compare the efficacy of four antiseptics. The proposed network meta-analysis will compare four antiseptics and rank the results using network meta-analysis to decide which was the best.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016038088.

Comparative study of 2 oral care protocols in intensive care units

BACKGROUND

The quality of oral care is important in limiting the emergence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in intubated patients. Our main objective was to measure the quality improvement in oral care following the implementation of a new oral care protocol. We also monitored VAP rates.

MATERIAL/METHODS

This was a cohort study of patients in 5 adult ICUs covering different specialties. During period 1, caregivers used a foam stick for oral care and during period 2 a stick and tooth brushing with aspiration. Oral chlorhexidine was used during both periods. The caregivers rated improvement in oral health on the basis of 4 criteria (tongue, mucous membranes, gingivae, and teeth). Caregiver satisfaction was also assessed. The incidence of VAP was monitored.

RESULTS

A total of 2,030 intubated patients admitted to intensive care units benefited from oral care. The patient populations during the 2 periods were similar with regard to demographic data and VAP potential risk factors. Oral health was significantly better from the third day of oral care in period 2 onward (period 1, 6.4 ± 2.1; period 2, 5.6 ± 1.8; P = .043). Caregivers found the period 2 protocol easier to implement and more effective. VAP rates decreased significantly between the 2 periods (period 1, 12.8%; period 2, 8.5%; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the implementation of a simple strategy improved the quality of oral care of patients in intensive care units, and decreased VAP rates.

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.

Can routine oral care with antiseptics prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation? An update meta-analysis from 17 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Whether oral antiseptics could reduce the risk of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effect of oral care with antiseptics on the prevalence of ventilator associated pneumonia in adult critically ill patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were performed to identity relevant studies. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving oral care with antiseptics. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Jadad score. Relative risks (RRs), weighted mean differences (WMDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed with I (2) test.

RESULTS

17 studies with a total number of 4249 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 17 studies, 14 assessed the effect of chlorhexidine, and 3 investigated the effect of povidone-iodine. Overall, oral care with antiseptics significantly reduced the prevalence of VAP (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.92; P=0.008). The use of chlorhexidine was shown to be effective (RR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.93; P=0.012), whereas this effect was not observed in povidone-iodine (RR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.09, 2.82; P=0.438). Subgroup analyses showed that oral antiseptics were most marked in cardiac surgery patients (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.74; P=0.00). Patients with oral antiseptics did not have a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR=1.11, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.29; P=0.201), length of ICU stay (WMD=-0.10 days, 95% CI: -0.25, 0.05; P=0.188), or duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD=-0.05 days, 95% CI: -0.14, 0.04; P=0.260).

CONCLUSION

Oral care with antiseptics significantly reduced the prevalence of VAP. Chlorhexidine application prevented the occurrence of VAP in mechanically ventilated patients but povidone-iodine did not. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to identify the findings and determine the effect of povidone-iodine application.