Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 May;174(5):751-61. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.359.

Reappraisal of routine oral care with chlorhexidine gluconate for patients receiving mechanical ventilation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts2Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
2
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
3
Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
4
Highland Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center Affiliate, Rochester, New York.
5
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland6Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland7Department of Health Policy and Management, B.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE:

Regular oral care with chlorhexidine gluconate is standard of care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation in most hospitals. This policy is predicated on meta-analyses suggesting decreased risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia, but these meta-analyses may be misleading because of lack of distinction between cardiac surgery and non-cardiac surgery studies, conflation of open-label vs double-blind investigations, and insufficient emphasis on patient-centered outcomes such as duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the impact of routine oral care with chlorhexidine on patient-centered outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

DATA SOURCES:

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until July 2013 without limits on date or language.

STUDY SELECTION:

Randomized clinical trials comparing chlorhexidine vs placebo in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Of 171 unique citations, 16 studies including 3630 patients met inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:

Eligible trials were independently identified, evaluated for risk of bias, and extracted by 2 investigators. Differences were resolved by consensus. We stratified studies into cardiac surgery vs non-cardiac surgery and open-label vs double-blind investigations. Eligible studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Ventilator-associated pneumonia, mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, antibiotic prescribing.

RESULTS:

There were fewer lower respiratory tract infections in cardiac surgery patients randomized to chlorhexidine (relative risk [RR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.41-0.77]) but no significant difference in ventilator-associated pneumonia risk in double-blind studies of non-cardiac surgery patients (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.16]). There was no significant mortality difference between chlorhexidine and placebo in cardiac surgery studies (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.25-2.14]) and nonsignificantly increased mortality in non-cardiac surgery studies (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.99-1.29]). There were no significant differences in mean duration of mechanical ventilation or intensive care length of stay. Data on hospital length of stay and antibiotic prescribing were limited.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Routine oral care with chlorhexidine prevents nosocomial pneumonia in cardiac surgery patients but may not decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia risk in non-cardiac surgery patients. Chlorhexidine use does not affect patient-centered outcomes in either population. Policies encouraging routine oral care with chlorhexidine for non-cardiac surgery patients merit reevaluation.

PMID:
24663255
DOI:
10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.359
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center