Richards Derek
Centre for Evidence-based Dentistry, Oxford, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2013 Sep;14(3):91-2. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400957.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, OpenGrey and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched. Reference lists of identified articles were also scanned for relevant papers. There were no language restrictions.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating OHC in the form of mouthwashes, swabs, toothbrushing or in combination in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation were included.
Data extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contracted for additional information. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled.
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.Seventeen RCTs (2402 participants, two at high, 11 at unclear and four at low risk of bias) provide moderate quality evidence 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%) A number needed to treat (NNT) of 15 (95% CI 10 to 34). There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. 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.Three trials in children found no evidence of a difference between OHC with CHX and placebo, and there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of other outcomes. Four RCTs (828 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± CHX), and for the outcome of VAP no evidence of a difference was found (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.29, P = 0.24, I(2) = 64%). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of other outcomes.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.
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.
检索了Cochrane口腔健康小组试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS)、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方数据库、OpenGrey和美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov)。还对已识别文章的参考文献列表进行了扫描,以查找相关论文。无语言限制。
纳入以漱口水、拭子、刷牙或联合使用等形式评估重症机械通气患者口腔卫生护理(OHC)的随机对照试验(RCT)。
由两名 reviewers 独立进行数据提取。向研究作者索要额外信息。在数据可合并的情况下进行随机效应荟萃分析。
纳入35项RCT(5374名参与者)。5项试验(14%)在至少一个领域的偏倚风险评估为低风险,17项研究(49%)为高风险,13项研究(37%)的偏倚风险评估为不清楚。有四项主要比较:洗必泰(CHX漱口水或凝胶)与安慰剂/常规护理、刷牙与不刷牙、电动牙刷与手动牙刷以及口腔护理溶液的比较。17项RCT(2402名参与者,两项高风险、11项不清楚风险、四项低风险)提供了中等质量证据,表明作为OHC一部分的CHX漱口水或凝胶与安慰剂或常规护理相比,可降低呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的发生率(比值比[OR]0.60,95%置信区间[CI]0.47至0.77,P<0.001,I²=21%),需治疗人数(NNT)为15(95%CI 10至34)。在死亡率、机械通气持续时间或重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间方面,没有证据表明CHX与安慰剂/常规护理之间存在差异。没有足够证据确定CHX与安慰剂/常规护理在全身抗生素使用持续时间、口腔健康指数、微生物培养、护理人员偏好或成本等结果上是否存在差异。只有三项研究报告了任何不良反应,且这些反应轻微,CHX组和对照组的发生频率相似。三项针对儿童的试验未发现CHX进行OHC与安慰剂之间存在差异的证据,也没有足够证据确定其他结果的影响。四项RCT(828名参与者,低质量证据)将不刷牙(±CHX)的OHC进行了比较,对于VAP结局,未发现差异证据(OR 0.69,95%CI 0.36至1.29,P = 0.24,I²=64%)。没有足够证据确定其他结果的影响。只有一项试验比较了电动牙刷与手动牙刷的使用,提供的证据不足以确定对本综述任何结局的影响。比较了一系列其他口腔护理溶液。有一些微弱证据表明聚维酮碘漱口水在降低VAP方面比生理盐水更有效(OR 0.35,95%CI 0.19至0.65,P = 0.0009,I²=53%)(两项研究,206名参与者,高偏倚风险)。由于该组试验中的比较和结局存在差异,没有足够证据证明其他口腔护理溶液对本综述结局的影响。
有效的OHC对重症监护病房中接受机械通气的患者很重要。包括洗必泰漱口水或凝胶的OHC可使重症成年患者发生呼吸机相关性肺炎的几率降低40%。然而,在死亡率、机械通气持续时间或ICU住院时间方面没有证据表明存在差异。没有证据表明包括CHX和刷牙的OHC与单独使用CHX的OHC有差异,有一些微弱证据表明聚维酮碘漱口水在降低VAP方面比生理盐水更有效。没有足够证据确定电动牙刷或其他口腔护理溶液在降低VAP方面是否有效。