首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine >Can routine oral care with antiseptics prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation? An update meta-analysis from 17 randomized controlled trials
【2h】

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

机译:机械通气患者的常规口腔护理是否可以预防呼吸机相关性肺炎?来自17个随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:背景:口服杀菌剂是否可以降低接受机械通气的患者的呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的风险仍存在争议。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估口服防腐剂对成人危重患者呼吸机相关性肺炎患病率的影响。方法:对PubMed,Embase和Web of Science进行全面搜索以鉴定相关研究。符合条件的研究是接受口服抗菌药物治疗的机械通气成人患者的随机对照试验。纳入研究的质量通过Jadad评分进行评估。相对风险(RRs),加权平均差异(WMD)和95%置信区间(CIs)均使用固定效应模型或随机效应模型进行了计算和汇总。研究中的异质性通过I 2 检验进行评估。结果:17项研究总共4249符合纳入标准。在这17项研究中,有14项评估了洗必泰的效果,而3项研究了聚维酮碘的效果。总体而言,使用防腐剂进行口腔护理可显着降低VAP的患病率(RR = 0.72,95%CI:0.57,0.92; P = 0.008)。氯己定的使用被证明是有效的(RR = 0.73,95%CI:0.57,0.93; P = 0.012),而在聚维酮碘中则没有观察到这种效应(RR = 0.51,95%CI:0.09,2.82; P = 0.438)。亚组分析显示,在心脏外科手术患者中口服杀菌剂最为显着(RR = 0.54,95%CI:0.39,0.74; P = 0.00)。口服防腐剂患者的重症监护病房(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)没有降低: -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)。结论:口服抗菌药物可大大降低VAP的患病率。氯己定的使用可防止机械通气患者发生VAP,而聚维酮碘则不能。还需要进一步的大规模,设计良好的随机对照试验,以鉴定研究结果并确定聚维酮碘施用的效果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号