Department of Pneumology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuaifuyuan 1, Beijing, 100730, China.
Respir Care. 2010 Apr;55(4):467-74.
Recent guidelines concerning prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia recommend that ventilator circuits should not be changed routinely, but in practice circuit changes at regular intervals persist.
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases and reviewed citations to identify articles that reported the results of randomized controlled trials and sequential comparison studies that provided a clearly defined intervention of circuit changes (interval > or = 2 d) and the outcome measure of the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Both authors independently assessed the validity of the included studies, and extracted data using a pre-designed data-collection form. We used a random-effect model to combine data from studies that compared circuit changes every 2 days versus every 7 days, and circuit changes at regular intervals versus no routine circuit change.
The search yielded 10 reports, which included 19,169 patients. Compared to patients exposed to circuit changes every 7 days, patients who received circuit changes every 2 days had a higher risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (odds ratio 1.928, 95% confidence interval 1.080-3.443). Compared to no routine circuit change, changing the ventilator circuit at a 2-day or 7-day interval was associated with an odds ratio of 1.126 (95% confidence interval 0.793-1.599). There was a trend of reduced risk of pneumonia as circuit-change intervals were extended.
Frequent ventilator circuit changes are associated with a high risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia. No routine circuit change is safe and justified. Hospital infection-control policies and bedside practitioners should translate the evidence into clinical practice, if they haven't done so already.
最近有关预防呼吸机相关性肺炎的指南建议,呼吸机回路不应常规更换,但在实践中,定期更换回路的做法仍在持续。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 SCOPUS 数据库,并查阅了参考文献,以确定报告随机对照试验和序贯比较研究结果的文章,这些研究提供了明确界定的干预措施(间隔>或=2 天)和机械通气成人患者呼吸机相关性肺炎发展的结局测量。两位作者独立评估了纳入研究的有效性,并使用预先设计的数据收集表提取数据。我们使用随机效应模型来合并比较每 2 天与每 7 天更换回路以及定期更换回路与不常规更换回路的研究数据。
搜索结果共 10 篇报告,包括 19169 名患者。与接受每 7 天更换回路的患者相比,接受每 2 天更换回路的患者发生呼吸机相关性肺炎的风险更高(比值比 1.928,95%置信区间 1.080-3.443)。与不常规更换回路相比,每 2 天或 7 天更换呼吸机回路与比值比 1.126(95%置信区间 0.793-1.599)相关。随着更换回路间隔的延长,肺炎的风险呈降低趋势。
频繁更换呼吸机回路与呼吸机相关性肺炎的高风险相关。不常规更换回路是安全且合理的。如果医院感染控制政策和床边医护人员尚未将证据转化为临床实践,那么他们应该这样做。