Kaneoka Asako, Pisegna Jessica M, Miloro Keri V, Lo Mel, Saito Hiroki, Riquelme Luis F, LaValley Michael P, Langmore Susan E
1Boston University Sargent College,Boston,Massachusetts.
2South Shore Hospital,Weymouth,Massachusetts.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;36(8):899-906. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.77. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
Evidence is lacking on the preventive effect of oral care on healthcare-associated pneumonia in hospitalized patients and nursing home residents who are not mechanically ventilated. The primary aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of oral care on the incidence of pneumonia in nonventilated patients.
We searched 8 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, ICHUSHI, and CiNii), in addition to trial registries and a manual search. Eligible studies were published and unpublished randomized controlled trials examining the effect of any method of oral care on reported incidence of pneumonia and/or fatal pneumonia. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed for eligible studies.
We identified 5 studies consisting of 1,009 subjects that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 2 trials assessed the effect of chlorhexidine in hospitalized patients; 3 studies examined mechanical oral cleaning in nursing home residents. A meta-analysis could only be done on 4 trials; this analysis showed a significant risk reduction in pneumonia through oral care interventions (RRfixed, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.91; P=.02). The effects of mechanical oral care alone were significant when pooled across studies. (RRfixed, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P=.02). Risk reduction for fatal pneumonia from mechanical oral cleaning was also significant (RRfixed, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.71; P=.002). Most studies had a high risk of bias.
This analysis suggests a preventive effect of oral care on pneumonia in nonventilated individuals. This effect, however, should be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias in the included trials.
对于未接受机械通气的住院患者和养老院居民,口腔护理对医疗相关肺炎的预防效果缺乏证据。本综述的主要目的是评估口腔护理对非通气患者肺炎发病率的有效性。
我们检索了8个数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、CINAHL、Web of Science、LILACS、ICHUSHI和CiNii),此外还检索了试验注册库并进行了手工检索。符合条件的研究为已发表和未发表的随机对照试验,研究任何口腔护理方法对报告的肺炎发病率和/或致命性肺炎的影响。计算相对风险(RR)和95%置信区间。对符合条件的研究进行偏倚风险评估。
我们确定了5项研究,共1009名受试者符合纳入标准。其中,2项试验评估了洗必泰在住院患者中的效果;3项研究检查了养老院居民的机械口腔清洁。仅对4项试验进行了荟萃分析;该分析显示,通过口腔护理干预,肺炎风险显著降低(固定效应RR,0.61;95%CI,0.40 - 0.91;P = 0.02)。综合各研究来看,单独机械口腔护理的效果显著(固定效应RR,0.61;95%CI,0.40 - 0.92;P = 0.02)。机械口腔清洁对致命性肺炎的风险降低也很显著(固定效应RR,0.41;95%CI,0.23 - 0.71;P = 0.002)。大多数研究存在较高的偏倚风险。
该分析表明口腔护理对非通气个体的肺炎有预防作用。然而,由于纳入试验存在偏倚风险,对这一效果的解释应谨慎。