A review of oral preventative strategies to reduce ventilator‐associated pneumonia. Issue 3 (30th January 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Andrews, Tom; Steen, Colin
• Is Part Of: Nursing in critical care. Volume 18:Issue 3(2013)
• Page Start: 116
• Page End: 122
• Publication Date: 2013-01-30
• Subjects: Intensive care nursing -- Periodicals; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; 610.7361
• DOI: 10.1111/nicc.12002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1362-1017

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>ABSTRACT</title> <sec id="nicc12002-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Aim</title> <p>This article evaluates the evidence for and efficacy of the use of mechanical hygiene and chlorhexidine in the prevention of ventilator‐associated pneumonia (VAP).</p> </sec> <sec id="nicc12002-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Search strategies</title> <p>Inclusion criteria: primary research articles; randomized controlled trials; systematic reviews. Exclusion criteria: quasi‐experimental trials; opinion articles. Search Engines: PubMed; CINAHL; and EBSCO.</p> </sec> <sec id="nicc12002-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>VAP is the commonest infection found in critically ill patients who are mechanically ventilated. It is associated with increased mortality, increased length of stay in intensive care and increased costs.</p> </sec> <sec id="nicc12002-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Relevance to clinical practice</title> <p>VAP is a health care‐associated infection consistent with the presence of an endotracheal tube and mechanical ventilation for greater than 48 h. Efforts aimed at reducing infection rates include oral decontamination and mechanical hygiene to control the bacteria responsible, since there is an association between changes in bacteria found in the oropharynx and its development. Tooth brushing and the use of an oral antiseptic such as chlorhexidine gluconate are increasingly recommended in ventilator care bundles.</p> </sec> <sec id="nicc12002-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>While there have been a number of studies conducted evaluating the efficacy of both approaches, there is limited evidence to support their use. The frequency of oral decontamination and mechanical hygiene interventions have not been established and chlorhexidine 2% seems to be more effective compared to weaker concentrations, but data is mainly confined to patients following cardiothoracic surgery.</p> </sec> </abstract>