任何浓度的洗必泰对预防呼吸机相关肺炎均无效:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

Alessandro De Cassai, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Veronica Busetto, Christian Legnaro, Chiara Pretto, Alessio Rotondi, Annalisa Boscolo, Nicolò Sella, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi
{"title":"任何浓度的洗必泰对预防呼吸机相关肺炎均无效:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Alessandro De Cassai, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Veronica Busetto, Christian Legnaro, Chiara Pretto, Alessio Rotondi, Annalisa Boscolo, Nicolò Sella, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi","doi":"10.1186/s44158-024-00166-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Oral chlorhexidine has been widely used for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in the critical care setting; however, previous studies and evidence synthesis have generated inconsistent findings. Our study aims to investigate if different concentrations of oral chlorhexidine may be effective in preventing such complication in intensive care unit patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After pre-registration (Open Science Framework: 8CUKF), we conducted a network meta-analysis with the following PICOS: adult patients (age > 18 years old) undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation admitted in ICU (P); any concentration of chlorhexidine used for oral hygiene (I); placebo, sham intervention, usual care, or no intervention (C); rate of VAP (primary outcome), mechanical ventilation length, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality (secondary outcomes) (O); randomized controlled trials (S). We used the following database: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and EMBASE without any limitation in publication date or language.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chlorhexidine did not demonstrate any significant advantage over the control group in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia or reducing mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, or overall mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chlorhexidine oral decontamination does not reduce the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients and its routine use could not be recommended.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registration number: Open Science Framework: 8CUKF.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"4 1","pages":"30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11067293/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chlorhexidine is not effective at any concentration in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro De Cassai, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Veronica Busetto, Christian Legnaro, Chiara Pretto, Alessio Rotondi, Annalisa Boscolo, Nicolò Sella, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s44158-024-00166-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Oral chlorhexidine has been widely used for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in the critical care setting; however, previous studies and evidence synthesis have generated inconsistent findings. Our study aims to investigate if different concentrations of oral chlorhexidine may be effective in preventing such complication in intensive care unit patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After pre-registration (Open Science Framework: 8CUKF), we conducted a network meta-analysis with the following PICOS: adult patients (age > 18 years old) undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation admitted in ICU (P); any concentration of chlorhexidine used for oral hygiene (I); placebo, sham intervention, usual care, or no intervention (C); rate of VAP (primary outcome), mechanical ventilation length, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality (secondary outcomes) (O); randomized controlled trials (S). We used the following database: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and EMBASE without any limitation in publication date or language.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chlorhexidine did not demonstrate any significant advantage over the control group in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia or reducing mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, or overall mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chlorhexidine oral decontamination does not reduce the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients and its routine use could not be recommended.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registration number: Open Science Framework: 8CUKF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11067293/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-024-00166-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-024-00166-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:在重症监护环境中,口服洗必泰已被广泛用于预防呼吸机相关性肺炎;然而,以往的研究和证据综述得出的结论并不一致。我们的研究旨在探讨不同浓度的口服洗必泰是否能有效预防重症监护病房患者的此类并发症:预注册(开放科学框架:8CUKF)后,我们进行了一项网络荟萃分析,PICOS如下:在重症监护室接受有创机械通气治疗的成年患者(年龄大于 18 岁)(P);任何浓度的洗必泰口腔清洁剂(I);安慰剂、假干预、常规护理或无干预(C);VAP 发生率(主要结果)、机械通气时间、重症监护室住院时间(LOS)、住院时间、死亡率(次要结果)(O);随机对照试验(S)。我们使用了以下数据库:我们使用了以下数据库:PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)、Scopus 和 EMBASE,出版日期和语言不限:在预防呼吸机相关肺炎或降低死亡率、机械通气时间、重症监护室住院时间或总死亡率方面,洗必泰与对照组相比没有明显优势:结论:洗必泰口服消毒剂不能降低重症成人患者呼吸机相关性肺炎的发病率,因此不建议常规使用:试验注册:注册号:开放科学框架:8CUKF.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Chlorhexidine is not effective at any concentration in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction: Oral chlorhexidine has been widely used for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in the critical care setting; however, previous studies and evidence synthesis have generated inconsistent findings. Our study aims to investigate if different concentrations of oral chlorhexidine may be effective in preventing such complication in intensive care unit patients.

Methods: After pre-registration (Open Science Framework: 8CUKF), we conducted a network meta-analysis with the following PICOS: adult patients (age > 18 years old) undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation admitted in ICU (P); any concentration of chlorhexidine used for oral hygiene (I); placebo, sham intervention, usual care, or no intervention (C); rate of VAP (primary outcome), mechanical ventilation length, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality (secondary outcomes) (O); randomized controlled trials (S). We used the following database: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and EMBASE without any limitation in publication date or language.

Results: Chlorhexidine did not demonstrate any significant advantage over the control group in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia or reducing mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, or overall mortality.

Conclusions: Chlorhexidine oral decontamination does not reduce the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients and its routine use could not be recommended.

Trial registration: Registration number: Open Science Framework: 8CUKF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severe bronchiolitis before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective database analysis by the Italian Network of PICU study group (TIPNet). Understanding neuropathic pain: the role of neurophysiological tests in unveiling underlying mechanisms. Erector spinae plane block for cancer pain relief: a systematic review. Echocardiographic evaluation in patient candidate for liver transplant: from pathophysiology to hemodynamic optimization. Management of critically ill patients in austere environments: good clinical practice by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).
×
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