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

Effect of propolis mouthwash on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a comparative randomized triple-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) increases the length of hospitalization and mortality rate. This study aimed to determine the effect of propolis mouthwash on the incidence of VAP in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Triple-blind, comparative randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted over one year, with 110 ICU patients at Imam-Hossein and Bahar hospitals (Shahroud) and Kowsar Hospital (Semnan) in Iran. The intervention group used 15 cc of 0.06% propolis mouthwash solution twice daily at 8 AM and 4 PM for seven days. The control group used 15 cc of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash at the same times and duration. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, APACHE II, Beck Oral Assessment Scale, and Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (MCPIS).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in demographic information, disease severity, and oral health between the two groups before and after intervention (P > 0.05). The incidence of VAP in the intervention group compared to the control group was 10.9% vs. 30.9% on the third day (P = 0.0166, 95% CI: 0.53-0.83 and RR = 0.35), 23.6% vs. 43.6% on the fifth day (P = 0.0325 and 95% CI: 0.31-0.95 and RR = 0.54), and 25.5% vs. 47.3% on the seventh day (P = 0.0224, 95% CI: 0.32-0.92, and RR = 0.54). The Mann-Whitney indicated the incidence of VAP was significantly lower in the intervention group on the third, fifth, and seventh days.

CONCLUSION

Propolis mouthwash can be considered as an alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash for ICU patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Propolis mouthwash serves as a simple, economical intervention to potentially reduce incidence of VAP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(IRCT20110427006318N12, date 02.04.2019).

Effect of clove mouthwash on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a comparative randomized triple-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections in intensive care units (ICUs), and the use of mouthwash is the most widely used method to prevent its incidence. The aim of this study was to investigate effect of clove mouthwash on the incidence of VAP in the ICU.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This comparative, randomized, triple-blind, clinical trial was conducted on 168 eligible ICU patients at Kosar Hospital in Semnan, Iran, during 2021-2022, who were divided into intervention and control groups using random blocks. The intervention group received clove extract mouthwash at 6.66% concentration, and the control group received chlorhexidine 0.2% twice a day for 5 days (routine care). Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, and disease severity was measured based on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, oral health status was examined using the Beck Oral Assessment Scale (BOAS), and VAP diagnosis was made based on the Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (MCPIS).

RESULTS

Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in disease severity (p = 0.412) and oral health status (p = 0.239) between the patients in the two groups. After the intervention, 20.2% of the patients in the intervention group and 41.7% of those in the control group acquired VAP. The risk of VAP was 2.06 times higher in the control group than in the intervention group (p = 0.005, 95% CI: 1.26-3.37, RR = 2.06), but the severity of VAP did not differ significantly between the patients in the two groups (p = 0.557).

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that clove mouthwash reduces the incidence of VAP significantly.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clove mouthwash can be used as a simple and low-cost method to prevent VAP in ICU patients.

A retrospective evaluation of multiple definitions for ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) diagnosis in an Australian regional intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Ventilator Associated Pneumonia is a common complication of invasively ventilated patients with significant and underestimated morbidity and mortality. Defining VAP cases is greatly varied as many definitions are used with varying success and sensitivity. This study evaluates VAP detection using four definitions in a regional Australian Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

METHODS

A cohort of patients admitted to ICU at the Mackay Base Hospital from April 1st 2020 to March 31st 2021, who had endo-tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h were identified. Each patient was examined across four common definitions of VAP. Head-to-head analysis of definitions was pursued to determine the most suitable definition. The four definitions used included: An Australian VAP definition, the CDC VAP definition, the Mackay Base Hospital Local Protocol and a Physician Decision Arm.

RESULTS

66 unique patients and 2 re-intubations were identified during the data collection window. The local protocol identified 8 cases of VAP. The Australian VAP definition identified 6 additional cases and 0 missed cases compared to the local protocol. The CDC definition missed 4 cases and identified 4 additional cases compared to the local protocol. Finally, the physician arm identified 10 cases including 8 additional cases and missed 6 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

VAP is an extremely difficult clinical condition to define and detect. Definitions have varied accuracy and suffer logistically for application to the individual patient. Refined criteria for diagnosis of VAP is greatly needed and its prevalence in intensive care units likely remains uncertain.

The Role of Dysbiosis in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

In late December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) quickly spread worldwide, and the syndrome it causes, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has reached pandemic proportions. Around 30% of patients with COVID-19 experience severe respiratory distress and are admitted to the intensive care unit for comprehensive critical care. Patients with COVID-19 often present an enhanced immune response with a hyperinflammatory state characterized by a "cytokine storm," which may reflect changes in the microbiota composition. Moreover, the evolution to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may increase the severity of COVID-19 and related dysbiosis. During critical illness, the multitude of therapies administered, including antibiotics, sedatives, analgesics, body position, invasive mechanical ventilation, and nutritional support, may enhance the inflammatory response and alter the balance of patients' microbiota. This status of dysbiosis may lead to hyper vulnerability in patients and an inappropriate response to critical circumstances. In this context, the aim of our narrative review is to provide an overview of possible interaction between patients' microbiota dysbiosis and clinical status of severe COVID-19 with ARDS, taking into consideration the characteristic hyperinflammatory state of this condition, respiratory distress, and provide an overview on possible nutritional strategies for critically ill patients with COVID-19-ARDS.

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.