Li Longti, Ai Zhibing, Li Longzhu, Zheng Xuesong, Jie Luo
Department of Science and Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine Shiyan 442000, Hubei Province, P. R. China.
Department of Neurology, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine Shiyan 442000, Hubei Province, P. R. China.
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Feb 15;8(2):1645-57. eCollection 2015.
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.
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.
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).
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.
口服抗菌剂能否降低接受机械通气患者发生呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的风险仍存在争议。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估使用抗菌剂进行口腔护理对成年重症患者呼吸机相关性肺炎患病率的影响。
全面检索了PubMed、Embase和Web of Science以确定相关研究。符合条件的研究为接受抗菌剂口腔护理的机械通气成年患者的随机对照试验。采用Jadad评分评估纳入研究的质量。使用固定效应模型或随机效应模型计算并汇总相对风险(RRs)、加权平均差(WMDs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。通过I²检验评估研究间的异质性。
17项研究共4249例患者符合纳入标准。在这17项研究中,14项评估了洗必泰的效果,3项研究了聚维酮碘的效果。总体而言,使用抗菌剂进行口腔护理显著降低了VAP的患病率(RR=0.72,95%CI:0.57,0.92;P=0.008)。使用洗必泰显示有效(RR=0.73,95%CI:0.57,0.93;P=0.012),而聚维酮碘未观察到这种效果(RR=0.51,95%CI:0.09,2.82;P=0.438)。亚组分析表明,口腔抗菌剂在心脏手术患者中效果最为显著(RR=0.54,95%CI:0.39,0.74;P=0.00)。接受口腔抗菌剂治疗的患者在重症监护病房(ICU)死亡率(RR=1.11,95%CI:0.95,1.29;P=0.201)、ICU住院时间(WMD=-0.10天,95%CI:-0.25,0.05;P=0.188)或机械通气时间(WMD=-0.05天,95%CI:-0.14,0.04;P=0.260)方面并未降低。
使用抗菌剂进行口腔护理显著降低了VAP的患病率。应用洗必泰可预防机械通气患者发生VAP,但聚维酮碘则不然。需要进一步开展大规模、设计良好的随机对照试验以验证这些发现并确定聚维酮碘应用的效果。