The effectiveness of different concentrations of chlorhexidine for prevention of ventilator‐associated pneumonia: a meta‐analysis
- 19 August 2013
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Vol. 23 (11-12), 1461-1475
- https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12312
Abstract
Aims and objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia and explore the preferred concentration of chlorhexidine. Background The implementation of effective oral care measures could reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, but among several randomised controlled trials, whether using chlorhexidine is effective and which concentration is more appropriate remain controversial. Design A meta-analysis was conducted. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China Biology Medicine disc and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to collect randomised controlled trials of mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving oral care with chlorhexidine to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. The quality of randomised controlled trials was critically appraised, data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and disagreement was resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted for the eligible randomised controlled trials by revman 5.1. Relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel model, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I-2 test. Results Eighteen randomised controlled trials were included and a meta-analysis was used. All studies indicated chlorhexidine could significantly prevent and reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia [RR=0 center dot 59, 95% CI (0 center dot 50-0 center dot 69), pRR=0 center dot 53, 95% CI (0 center dot 43-0 center dot 67), pRR=0 center dot 55, 95% CI (0 center dot 37-0 center dot 81), p=0 center dot 002]. Conclusion Chlorhexidine can prevent and reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chlorhexidine of 0 center dot 12% has the best effect on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia according to the meta-analysis, cost analysis, adverse reactions and drug resistance analysis. Relevance to clinical practice Ventilator-associated pneumonia remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit, and implementing effective oral care can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chlorhexidine of 0 center dot 12% is recommended in our study.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Chlorhexidine decreases the risk of ventilator‐associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a randomized clinical trialJournal of Periodontal Research, 2012
- Effects of three approaches to standardized oral hygiene to reduce bacterial colonization and ventilator associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: A randomised control trialInternational Journal of Nursing Studies, 2011
- The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic reviewJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2010
- Critical Care Clinicians’ Knowledge of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Preventing Ventilator-Associated PneumoniaAmerican Journal of Critical Care, 2010
- Effectiveness of Oral Rinse with Chlorhexidine in Preventing Nosocomial Respiratory Tract Infections among Intensive Care Unit PatientsInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2009
- A randomized trial of chlorhexidine gluconate on oral bacterial pathogens in mechanically ventilated patientsCritical Care, 2009
- The Impact of a Simple, Low-cost Oral Care Protocol on Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Rates in a Surgical Intensive Care UnitJournal of Intensive Care Medicine, 2008
- Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Improvement ProgramAACN Advanced Critical Care, 2007
- Oral decontamination for prevention of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adults: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ, 2007
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003