Suppr超能文献

使用抗菌剂进行常规口腔护理能否预防接受机械通气患者的呼吸机相关性肺炎?一项来自17项随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析。

Can routine oral care with antiseptics prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation? An update meta-analysis from 17 randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Li Longti, Ai Zhibing, Li Longzhu, Zheng Xuesong, Jie Luo

机构信息

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.

出版信息

Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Feb 15;8(2):1645-57. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

相似文献

2
Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 13(8):CD008367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub2.
3
Oral care with chlorhexidine seems effective for reducing the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Evid Based Dent. 2017 Dec 22;18(4):113-114. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401272.
4
Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with oral antiseptics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;11(11):845-54. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70127-X. Epub 2011 Jul 26.
9
The effect of early mobilization in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis.
Nurs Crit Care. 2020 Nov;25(6):360-367. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12455. Epub 2019 Jun 20.

本文引用的文献

3
Chlorhexidine decreases the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a randomized clinical trial.
J Periodontal Res. 2012 Oct;47(5):584-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2012.01470.x. Epub 2012 Feb 29.
4
Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with oral antiseptics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;11(11):845-54. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70127-X. Epub 2011 Jul 26.
5
Acute pulmonary toxic effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) following an intratracheal instillation in rats.
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 Nov;30(11):1795-803. doi: 10.1177/0960327111400104. Epub 2011 Feb 21.
7
Prevention of nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit: beyond the use of bundles.
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011 Jun;12(3):211-20. doi: 10.1089/sur.2010.060. Epub 2010 Oct 7.
8
New issues and controversies in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 1;182(7):870-6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201001-0081CI. Epub 2010 May 6.
9
A European care bundle for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Intensive Care Med. 2010 May;36(5):773-80. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1841-5. Epub 2010 Mar 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验