Effect of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Oral Rinse on Preventing Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia in Nonventilator Inpatients.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Nursing Research Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1097/jnr.0000000000000527
Yen-Chin Chen, En-Ni Ku, Pei-Fang Tsai, Cheng-Man Ng, Jiun-Ling Wang, Che-Wei Lin, Nai-Ying Ko, Ying-Ju Chang
{"title":"Effect of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Oral Rinse on Preventing Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia in Nonventilator Inpatients.","authors":"Yen-Chin Chen,&nbsp;En-Ni Ku,&nbsp;Pei-Fang Tsai,&nbsp;Cheng-Man Ng,&nbsp;Jiun-Ling Wang,&nbsp;Che-Wei Lin,&nbsp;Nai-Ying Ko,&nbsp;Ying-Ju Chang","doi":"10.1097/jnr.0000000000000527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonventilator hospital-associated pneumonia (NV-HAP) is a nosocomial infection with a multifactorial etiology that is particularly prevalent in individuals with poor oral health.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study was designed to determine the effect of a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse intervention on oral health and on reducing NV-HAP in inpatients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized, double-blind, and triple-arm clinical trial was conducted on a sample of 103 patients aged ≥ 50 years. Using the blocking sample method, patients were randomly assigned into three groups. These included Group A, using an oral rinse solution of 0.12% chlorhexidine; Group B, using Listerine; and Group C, using a standard saline oral rinse. In addition to routine hospital-associated pneumonia preventative nursing care, the participants used the oral rinse solutions twice a day with a period of at least 9 hours between each use. Oral health, the degree of bacterial exposure, and the clinical pneumonia index scale were evaluated in each of the groups at baseline (first day), on Intervention Days 3 and 7, and at discharge. The clearance rate was calculated by dividing the number of bacteria cleared by the total frequency of oral bacteria in the collected culture × 100%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each arm of the study was composed of 34-35 participants, with an average hospitalization duration of 7.5 days. There was no incidence of NV-HAP or any changes in clinical pulmonary infection score among the three groups. Group A achieved a more significant improvement in oral health assessment tool scores between baseline and discharge than either Group B or C ( p = .03), particularly in the tongue, gums, and tissues; saliva; and oral cleanliness subscales. In addition, Group A reported higher clearance rates for Staphylococcus (100.00% vs. 66.67% vs. 66.67%, respectively), Escherichia coli (100.00% vs. 60.00% vs. 66.67%, respectively), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (75.00% vs. 46.30% vs. 25.00%, respectively) than Groups B and C.</p><p><strong>Conclusions/implications for practice: </strong>Although the results do not provide evidence supporting the use of a 0.12% chlorhexidine oral rinse as better in terms of preventing NV-HAP in middle-aged and elderly inpatients, nursing supervision was found to have an overall positive effect on oral health. The use of oral rinse with 0.12% chlorhexidine for nonventilated patients with poor oral health may be recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":49158,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Research","volume":"30 6","pages":"e248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000527","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Nonventilator hospital-associated pneumonia (NV-HAP) is a nosocomial infection with a multifactorial etiology that is particularly prevalent in individuals with poor oral health.

Purpose: This study was designed to determine the effect of a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse intervention on oral health and on reducing NV-HAP in inpatients.

Methods: A randomized, double-blind, and triple-arm clinical trial was conducted on a sample of 103 patients aged ≥ 50 years. Using the blocking sample method, patients were randomly assigned into three groups. These included Group A, using an oral rinse solution of 0.12% chlorhexidine; Group B, using Listerine; and Group C, using a standard saline oral rinse. In addition to routine hospital-associated pneumonia preventative nursing care, the participants used the oral rinse solutions twice a day with a period of at least 9 hours between each use. Oral health, the degree of bacterial exposure, and the clinical pneumonia index scale were evaluated in each of the groups at baseline (first day), on Intervention Days 3 and 7, and at discharge. The clearance rate was calculated by dividing the number of bacteria cleared by the total frequency of oral bacteria in the collected culture × 100%.

Results: Each arm of the study was composed of 34-35 participants, with an average hospitalization duration of 7.5 days. There was no incidence of NV-HAP or any changes in clinical pulmonary infection score among the three groups. Group A achieved a more significant improvement in oral health assessment tool scores between baseline and discharge than either Group B or C ( p = .03), particularly in the tongue, gums, and tissues; saliva; and oral cleanliness subscales. In addition, Group A reported higher clearance rates for Staphylococcus (100.00% vs. 66.67% vs. 66.67%, respectively), Escherichia coli (100.00% vs. 60.00% vs. 66.67%, respectively), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (75.00% vs. 46.30% vs. 25.00%, respectively) than Groups B and C.

Conclusions/implications for practice: Although the results do not provide evidence supporting the use of a 0.12% chlorhexidine oral rinse as better in terms of preventing NV-HAP in middle-aged and elderly inpatients, nursing supervision was found to have an overall positive effect on oral health. The use of oral rinse with 0.12% chlorhexidine for nonventilated patients with poor oral health may be recommended.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
0.12%氯己定口腔冲洗液预防非呼吸机住院患者医院获得性肺炎的效果。
背景:非呼吸机医院相关性肺炎(NV-HAP)是一种多因素的医院感染,在口腔健康状况不佳的人群中尤为普遍。目的:研究0.12%葡萄糖酸氯己定口腔冲洗液对住院患者口腔健康及降低NV-HAP的影响。方法:对103例年龄≥50岁的患者进行随机、双盲、三组临床试验。采用阻断样本法,将患者随机分为三组。包括A组,使用含0.12%氯己定的口腔冲洗液;B组,使用李斯特林;C组使用标准生理盐水口腔冲洗液。除了常规的医院相关肺炎预防护理外,参与者每天两次使用口腔冲洗液,每次使用之间至少间隔9小时。在基线(第一天)、干预第3天和第7天以及出院时,对各组的口腔健康、细菌暴露程度和临床肺炎指数量表进行评估。清除率为清除细菌数除以所收集培养物口腔细菌总频率× 100%。结果:每组34-35人,平均住院时间7.5天。三组患者无NV-HAP发生率,临床肺部感染评分无变化。与B组或C组相比,A组在口腔健康评估工具评分从基线到出院期间的改善更为显著(p = .03),特别是在舌头、牙龈和组织方面;唾液;口腔清洁度量表。此外,A组的葡萄球菌清除率(分别为100.00%、66.67%、66.67%)、大肠杆菌清除率(分别为100.00%、60.00%、66.67%)和铜绿假单胞菌清除率(分别为75.00%、46.30%、25.00%)高于B组和c组。虽然没有证据表明0.12%氯己定漱口水对中老年住院患者预防口腔感染有更好的效果,但总体而言,护理监督对口腔健康有积极的作用。对于口腔健康状况较差的非通气患者,可推荐使用含0.12%氯己定的口腔冲洗液。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
60
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Journal of Nursing Research (JNR) is comprised of original articles that come from a variety of national and international institutions and reflect trends and issues of contemporary nursing practice in Taiwan. All articles are published in English so that JNR can better serve the whole nursing profession and introduce nursing in Taiwan to people around the world. Topics cover not only the field of nursing but also related fields such as psychology, education, management and statistics.
期刊最新文献
Dietary Management in Individuals With Serious Mental Illness and Comorbid Diabetes: A Focused Ethnography Study. Exploring the Difficulties and Strategies of Family Caregivers in Caring for Patients With Dementia in Acute Care Wards. Correlation Among Workplace Burnout, Resilience, and Well-Being in Nursing Staff: A Cross-Sectional Study in Taiwan. Factors Associated With HIV-Related Stigma Among Indonesian Healthcare Workers: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey. Validation of the Korean Version of the Assessment of Strategies in Families-Effectiveness Scale.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1